JUSTICES OF THE PEACE BILL [H.L.]

HL Deb 07 November 1949 vol 165 cc207-314

2.35 p.m.

Order of the Day read for the House to be put into Committee on re-commitment of the Bill.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee. — (The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]

Clause 1:

Residence qualification of justices

1.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person shall not be appointed justice of the peace by the commission of the peace for any area, nor act as justice of the peace by virtue of any such appointment, unless he resides in or within seven miles of that area.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT) moved, in subsection (1) to omit "seven" and insert "ten." The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment is put down as a result of a suggestion made on the Committee stage by my noble and learned friend Lord Maugham. It is to substitute ten miles for seven miles as being the radius within which a magistrate of a borough must reside. Perhaps I may say a few words on this Amendment and the next, standing in Lord Llewellin's name, because they rather hang together. I am quite certain of this: that if there is to be a qualification test it must be a fairly obvious test, so that we can tell whether or not the qualification is being carried out. I understand why the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, has included in his Amendment the words, "is gainfully employed in that area." He wants the right to sit to apply not only to the employer but also to the employee. If we confine it to an office or warehouse we tend to confine it to the employer. On the other hand, there is an air of ambiguity about his phrase. I should not know how to apply a test as to whether a man was gainfully employed in an area."

Take the case of Manchester. A Middlesex professional cricketer goes to play at Old Trafford and is paid for his services in playing there. Is he "gainfully employed" in the area of Manchester? Then what about a distinguished member of the northern circuit who lives in London but who habitually goes on the northern circuit, and who habitually has briefs to go to Manchester? Is he "gainfully employed" in the area of Manchester? If there is to be a test and qualification, it must be a qualification which can be readily discerned. A commercial traveller who travels all over the country may, I suppose, be said to be "gainfully employed" in every area to which he goes. I suggest that the phrase is altogether too indefinite.

In the original clause of this Bill, as I pointed out on the last occasion, I precisely follow the recommendation of the du Parcq Commission. There is no magic about the word "ten," and I do not suppose that Lord Maugham, who suggested it, would maintain that there was. The "seven," of course, was a distance which was suggested before the days of the internal combustion engine. I am quite prepared to make it "fifteen" if that makes it any easier. If that suggestion commends itself to your Lordships, I would ask leave to substitute the word "fifteen" for the word "ten." That I could do by withdrawing this Amendment and moving a Manuscript Amendment. I do not suppose that the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, would have any objection to that, and it might be that it would meet not only this Amendment but also the one following. For the moment, I formally move that we substitute the word "ten" for the word "seven."

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 10, leave out ("seven") and insert ("ten").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

I would say only a few words on this matter, and they are again of a purely mathematical character. It so happens that the area comprised in a circle—if it is a case of a circle—depends upon the square of the radius. The result of that is that seven times seven is forty-nine, and ten times ten is one hundred. The Amendment which my noble and learned friend has moved would alter to one-half the area with which we are concerned.

LORD LLEWELLIN

As the noble and learned Viscount has referred to my next Amendment I will explain why I put it down. The Lord Chancellor is right in saying that I proposed to add "gainfully employed" because I like—as I imagine every noble Lord does—to see every section of the community available for appointment as justice of the peace. I did not want my Amendment to infer that it was only a person who owned an office, a warehouse or a business in the place, who could come into this wider definition. In Liverpool, forty-five existing justices, as well as new appointments, would be disqualified by subsection (1), as it stands, unless the Lord Chancellor exercises power under subsection (2). In addition to the forty-five from Liverpool, thirty-five from Manchester and six from Newcastle-upon-Tyne would also be ineligible to sit. I am referring to boroughs, of course—it is the qualification in respect of boroughs that we are altering. Previously in regard to boroughs a person was eligible who occupied a house, warehouse or other property in the borough. The six referred to at Newcastle-upon-Tyne include the chairman of the juvenile court panel and the deputy chairman of that panel. At Sunderland, where two justices would be disqualified, one of them would be the chairman of the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee there.

Altogether, in the towns which I have quoted 112 people would be disqualified because they reside outside the seven miles. I appreciate the arguments put forward by the noble and learned Viscount about what is to be the test of being "gainfully employed." I suppose the Middlesex cricketer would be gainfully employed in the area for only three days a year, and it might not happen that he was appointed a justice on one of those three days. The commercial traveller is, of course, a more difficult problem, but I should not have been frightened of that because we should be ensuring that the selection was not restricted, and unless a man was habitually in a place I do not suppose the advisory committee 'would send his name forward or that the Lord Chancellor would appoint him. What I was trying to do was to ensure that there was not such a large degree of disqualification. I am told that if we increase the ten miles to fifteen miles, in the case of Liverpool and Manchester it would include most of the existing justices, who live in the suburbs and come in every day, and who are in the main, I believe, extremely good justices of the peace. So far as I am concerned, if the noble and learned Viscount would substitute "fifteen" for "ten" it would satisfy me, and I would not move my Amendment.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

That would he quite satisfactory to me, and I gather that there would be no objections from any quarter. I would ask leave to withdraw my Amendment and then to move it in the new form.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 10, leave out ("seven") and insert ("fifteen").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

LORD SCHUSTER

Before we pass this clause may I say that many of us had depended upon the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, which we thought of some importance. If the Lord Chancellor feels there is difficulty about the word "employed," I think it can be met by inserting the word "habitually." If a man carries or business in Manchester and goes there every day of his life—perhaps he lives fifteen miles away at Chelford—he may still be appointed as a justice of the peace for the borough, although, of course, it does not follow that he will be. So far as I am concerned, I was very distressed that the noble Lord should so easily withdraw his Amendment.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I entirely agree with the Royal Commission on this point. I think the Royal Commission were absolutely right. I always resist the idea of appointing magistrates for the mere purpose of signing documents. I say that my existing magistrates are sufficient to sign documents. If I am to have magistrates living more than fifteen miles away, they will not be able to sign documents in the evening. But I will say this to the noble Lord, Lord Schuster, and perhaps it will console him. I have a dispensing power and I intend to use that power, particularly with regard to legal qualifications. If I am told that there is a magistrate, a chairman of a juvenile court or a member of my advisory committee who is rendering useful service, I shall, without hesitation, avail myself of that power and so prevent his being disqualified under this rule. I hope that with that assurance the noble Lord will agree to follow the advice of the Royal Commission.

LORD GODDARD

If the noble and learned Viscount follows the advice of the Royal Commission, will he not keep in the words "carries on business in the borough"?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

No, that is what they were against.

LORD GODDARD

It seems to me that people who carry on business in a borough should be eligible. However, if the Royal Commission were against it I will not press the objection.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

2.48 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved after Clause 1 to insert the following new clause:

The Mayor as a justice

". Subsection (7) and (8) of section eighteen of the Local Government Act, 1933, shall be amended as follows:—

1. (a) the mayor of a borough shall not under subsection (7) be a justice of the peace for the borough during the year next after he ceases to be mayor;
2. (b) subsection (7) shall not apply to the mayor of a borough not having a separate commission of the peace, and he shall accordingly be a justice for the county under subsection (8) but not for the borough;
3. (c) subsection (8) shall not apply to the mayor of a borough having a separate commission of the peace, and he shall accordingly be a justice for the borough under subsection (7) but not for the county."

The noble and learned Viscount said: This is a new clause to deal with the position of the mayor. We had a discussion last time about the question of ex-officio justices. Your Lordships will remember that there were differences of opinion on the matter, and you will remember that the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, made a strong speech and was countered by the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, sitting next to him, who made an equally strong speech in the other direction. I mention that only to show that there are no Party lines in it at all. The Amendment was carried by one vote. I was asked particularly to see what I could do about the position of the mayor. The mayor, under existing law, becomes an ex-officio magistrate not only for his year of office, but also for the year following his year of office. He is, therefore, an ex-officio magistrate when he has no office. I was asked in all quarters of the House to look at that matter, and here I am following the recommendations of the du Parcq Commission—not that that in any sense precludes us from following another course, but on the other hand it is a fact we ought to hear in mind. They said, in paragraph 158: The special position of the mayor does not however require that ex-mayors should continue to be justices for a year, or that the mayor of a borough with a separate commission should be a county justice, or that he should be entitled to preside at ordinary magistrates courts.

In various parts of this Bill we have dealt with all these three measures. I am here saying in paragraph (a): The mayor of a borough shall not under subsection (7) be a justice of the peace for the borough during the year next after he ceases to be mayor.

Paragraph (b) says: subsection (7) shall not apply to a mayor of a borough not having a separate commission of the peace, and he shall accordingly be a justice for the county under subsection (8) but not for the borough; I think it right that the mayor should be a justice for somewhere. But in paragraph (c) we make it plain that if there is a separate commission for the peace for the borough, then he becomes a justice for the borough and not for the county. If we did not give him, as we propose to do in paragraph (b), the right to become a justice of the peace, we should be putting him in a worse position than a chairman of a county council or a district or urban council.

I do not want to go back to this question of ex-officio justices. Perhaps I may sum up in this way. I admit quite frankly that if we were doing this merely from the point of view of the administration of justice and nothing else, I should be in favour of abolishing ex-officio justices, for this reason: that although I do get a certain number of candidates who prove themselves during their year as ex officio magistrates and whom I find useful and put on the corn-mission, yet, on the other hand, in view of what we all hope, that there is now going to he some kind of training for magistrates, it would not be right to make a man who is going to be a magistrate for only a year, submit himself for training; and so you would get the untrained mixed with the trained. At the same time, there is behind this the question of local government. None of us can overlook the fact that we must be very careful at the present time before we deal what might be regarded as another blow at local government. This conception of mayors and chairmen of councils becoming magistrates for their year of office is the creation of a local government Statute: the Local Government Act of 1888 enacted it for the first time. The whole problem of local government is knocking at our door, and no Government should attempt to deal with it rashly.

But, whatever Government may be in power in the next few years, this problem of local government must be dealt with; and when it is dealt with, that might be the time to consider the whole matter. For my part, however, I am reluctant to take now a step which I know front my correspondence would be regarded as another blow at local government, depriving authorities of a right which they have had for a long time. Although I am not prepared to do that in this Bill (and herein I am differing from. the Royal Commission's Report) I am prepared to put the mayor on an equality with the other chairmen: I am ready to prevent his being a justice of peace after his year of office has ceased, to prevent him from being a county justice if he can become a borough justice, and prevent him, as we do later in the Bill, from being chairman of the bench. In that way I hope I have done something which will commend itself to the great majority of your Lordships. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 1, insert the said new clause. —(The Lord Chancellor.)

LORD CALVERLEY

I personally am gateful to the noble and learned Viscount for what I consider is a fair compromise. Our difficulty on the Royal Commission was that the mayor is looked upon as the chief magistrate, whether it be in a small borough or in a large city. In the large cities usually the chief magistrate has not the time to sit on the bench.

This compromise will cut into about half the number of ex-officio justices, at any rate in the boroughs throughout England and Wales. Therefore, I hope the Committee will accept it.

2.55 p.m.

LORD MERTHYR

This matter was debated on the last occasion, when an Amendment which I moved was narrowly defeated. Perhaps I may be allowed to try to make the position clear now so far as my Amendment is concerned. The Amendment which we are now discussing has three paragraphs: (a), (b), and (c). I entirely agree with paragraph (a), and I do not think there can be any substantial dispute about it this afternoon. I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for the concessions he has made to those who think differently about certain points in this Bill—this being one of them. I cannot quite agree with paragraph (b). In boroughs where there is no separate commission of the peace this Amendment puts the mayor on the county bench. The Lord Chancellor said that he did not want to deal with the subject because it is a local government matter and not a justices of The peace matter. But I respectfully suggest that the weakness of that argument is that the Lord Chancellor has dealt with it by his own Amendment. If the Lord Chancellor is right, that this should be left to a Local Government Act, then I respectfully suggest that he should not himself have put down an Amendment, as he has this afternoon.

Furthermore, was not this one of the terms of reference of the Royal Commission?: To consider and report whether any alteration is desirable in the law or practice as to ex-officio Justices of the Peace. If it is the view of His Majesty's Government that this ought not to be dealt with except by a Local Government Act, why was this included in the Royal Commission's terms of reference? It ought to he dealt with now. If it is left to be dealt with in a Local Government Act, it will inevitably be submerged in many other things. After all, it is not local govern- ment but justice which is here concerned. The powers or duties of local authorities are not concerned; so far as local authorities are concerned, this is merely an appendage. Therefore, I invite the Committee to divide on paragraph (b). I do not know whether the rules of your Lordships' House will allow us to divide on one paragraph of an Amendment and not on the other two. If not, I must ask the Committee to divide on the whole Amendment—making it clear that I am not disputing paragraph (a) or paragraph (c). I am not trying to keep the mayor off the bench in his own borough, although I do not like the idea. I want to make that clear in order that there shall not be any misunderstanding in the minds of noble Lords taking part in the Division.

There are one or two matters I should like to stress. If a man is likely to make a good magistrate, there are abundant ways of putting, him on the bench without making him an ex-officio magistrate. This matter is all the more important because, under this Bill, the benches are to be smaller and there will be, I hope, a maximum number of justices to sit on the bench. If there is a bad magistrate—and we say that many of these ex-officio magistrates are not at all what they should be—then it makes more difference if the benches are smaller. I say again that the whole of this scheme of training magistrates is going to be thrown to the winds if they are to be allowed in by the back door without any training at all.

I need not repeat all that I said about having ex-officio justices with any sort of character coming on to the bench, and having at the same time an elaborate system of sifting antecedents in order to try to get good men. I feel most strongly that it is objectionable that a man goes on to the bench merely because he holds another office. It cannot be denied that in an ever-increasing number of cases his appointment is made as a reward ford political or public services, or both. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor himself (I think I am right in saying) told the Royal Commission that a magistrate's office should not be considered to be an honour, but rather that it should be considered to be a burden and a duty. I respectfully agree. But that principle is largely destroyed if appointment to the bench is made a reward for public service especially when —and, as I said last time, it is becoming more and more common—chairmen of local authorities are appointed for only one year.

I should like to quote three lines from the Report of the Royal Commission, paragraph 156, page 40. The Commission had been examining the short time during which the chairmen of local authorities sit on the bench ex officio and they say: These figures…show quite clearly that an ex-officio justice (who is not also a justice named in a commission) has little chance of gaining much experience in magisterial work. I entirely agree, and I think that that is a conclusive argument. On the last occasion the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, suggested that somehow having the ex-officio justice was a good way to get country people on to the bench. Surely everyone knows that a country magistrate has just as much chance of being appointed in the ordinary way. I am a country magistrate, and I am sure it is not the case that a man is more likely to get on the bench ex officio than by his being appointed by the Lord Chancellor. Therefore I respectfully suggest that there is nothing at all in that point. I do not want to repeat what I said, but I urge the House to oppose paragraph (b) of this Amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

May I suggest that the right way of dealing with the matter would be for the noble Lord, by leave of the House, to move a Manuscript Amendment to the Lord Chancellor's Amendment—namely, to delete paragraph (b)?

LORD MERTHYR

I entirely agree and, with the permission of the House, that is what I should like to do. I beg to move accordingly.

Amendment to the Amendment moved— Leave out paragraph (b) of the proposed new clause.—(Lord Merthyr.)

LORD SALTOUN

I should like to say a few words in support of my noble friend Lord Merthyr, because I was part of the minority who were defeated by one vote on the last occasion. I think the Lord Chancellor has practically admitted that it was a more or less open secret that the victorious majority were moved by considerations which were not strictly those of the Justices of the Peace Bill. I went home rather sorry for what had happened and I did some reading to console myself. I came across an argument which I will submit because it has net yet been used in this House. The author was writing about language and she said: Language … began with whole sentences. She goes on to say that the Tierra del Fuegians (and your Lordships will perhaps know that the Tierra del Fuegians are among the most primitive of human races): have a word, or rather holophrase, mamihlapinatapai, which means 'looking-at-each-other, hoping-that-either will-offer-to-do-something-which-both-parties-desire-but-are-unwilling-to-do '. I respectfully submit to your Lordships that it is very interesting to find that the difficulties of your Lordships' House exist also amongst the Tierra del Fuegians. I also respectfully urge upon your Lordships that our way of settling them should not be those of this primitive people.

3.5 p.m.

LORD LLEWELLIN

May I say something on the Manuscript Amendment which has been moved by the noble Lord. Lord Merthyr? I think he must have moved that under a misapprehension because up to date mayors have been on the commission of the peace for their boroughs and now, in the case of mayors who come under paragraph (b), there will be no 'borough commission of the peace. It will be only a county commission of the peace. So the man has either to be on the commission of the peace for the county or not a justice of the peace at all. Under paragraph (c) he can become a justice of the commission of the peace for the borough, because there will still be a commission of the peace for the borough. We are dealing with those who now come under paragraph (b). They will still he able to sit on the bench which meets in their borough because that is where they will he living. They will be in that petty sessional division and they will adjudicate mainly on cases coming from the borough. It may be that, by the recommendation of some magistrates' courts committee and action by the Secretary of State, the borough boundaries are widened, and the justices may sit for a slightly widened area.

What we are doing by the Lord Chancellor's Amendment is to ensure that these mayors shall still be able to sit as justices of the peace, not for but in their borough. At the time when by this measure we shall be depriving a lot of those boroughs of their separate commissions of the peace, it would be a bit "steep" if we were to provide that the mayor of a borough which retains its commission of the peace shall be qualified to sit, but the mayor of a borough from which we have taken away its commission shall be removed. I hope that we shall deal with all mayors in the same way, and that your Lordships not accept the Amendment which my noble friend Lord Merthyr has moved to the Lord Chancellor's new clause.

LORD ROCHESTER

I do not want to delay the Committee, but I would like to say a word or two on this matter. I voted with my noble friend Lord Merthyr on the narrow Division on the first Committee stage when it was decided by only one vote, but the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, has made the point that I wanted to make—namely, that we do not want more differentiation. I feel that this suggestion of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor is a fair compromise. I hope that nothing will be done in this debate that will be another blow at local government. I would urge that the Lord Chancellor's Amendment be accepted by your Lords

LORD MERTHYR

I am not under any misapprehension. I would just like to explain. I too want less differentiation. If paragraph (b) stands, there is my next Amendment which seeks to deprive the chairmen of district councils from sitting on the bench. I think it is wrong that a mayor should sit on a county bench while the chairman of a district council does not. On the last occasion, the Lord Chancellor said that we must go through with all of this or none. I quite agree.

I admit that the Royal Commission did not agree. I never could discover why. I have still been unable to discover why the mayor of a small borough or any borough that has not a separate commission of the peace should sit on the county bench—maybe twenty miles away may be in his own borough—while the chairman of an urban district council, which may cover a far larger town, is not allowed to sit on the bench, as I hope he will not be. I agree with those who say "all or none." I do not like the mayor sitting as a justice in his borough. I do not oppose paragraph (c), although I do not like it. If I refrain from opposing paragraph (b), then when I come to move my own Amendment it would mean differentiation. I would remind the House that some of these boroughs are extremely small and some urban districts extremely large. I have quoted one instance already. There is one borough which has a population of under 9,000 and there is one urban district which has a population of 217,000. Why should the mayor of that borough sit on the county bench, when the chairman of that urban district council does not? I do understand that at all. Therefore I do press my Amendment to the Amendment, and I do so under no misunderstanding.

VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD

I find myself in some difficulty. It is difficult to differentiate between one part of this question and another. Let me then tell the Committee my general feeling in regard to these questions. As to the position of the mayors, I realise that there is a good deal of historical tradition behind the office, and I therefore draw a distinction between mayors and chairmen of urban or rural councils. I am prepared to accept this difference between mayors, who have been chief magistrates in their boroughs for generations, and chairmen of the smaller councils which were created almost by chance a generation ago. That is the first point that I would like to make. It shows how difficult it is to divide one point from the others. Again, I draw a distinction between the chairmen of county councils and the chairmen of rural district councils. It may he that if one looked at the list of the chairmen of county councils one would find that almost without exception they are already on the bench.

When we come to the next Amendment on the Paper, I shall certainly support my noble friend Lord Merthyr if he presses it to a Division. Let me say in that connection, in answer to the argument which the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Jowitt, advanced with such power a few moments ago—the argument that we should be taking a great interest out of local government if we took these chairmen of councils off the bench—that I do not differentiate between one kind of local government and another kind of local government. I regard the local magistrates as an essential part of local government. I believe, looking at local government as a whole, that it would be well if we took this opportunity to raise the status of the magistrates. I venture to make this intervention with a view to stressing, first, how difficult it is to divide one side of this question from another, and also to say that, so far as the mayors are concerned, I am prepared on historical grounds to accept what I recognise to be an anomaly. On that account I advise my noble friend to keep his guns for the next Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I intervene with very great diffidence on this point. I have not taken any part in the discussions on this Bill, and I was not here when the matter was discussed before. In view of the speeches that have been made, I feel that perhaps I should say a word in support of the Lord Chancellor's view, with which I personally, without any technical or professional experience, agree. As I understood Lord Merthyr, he attacked the Lord Chancellor for confusing local government with justice, and he said that this was purely a matter of justice and not a matter of local government. As I understood the Lord Chancellor, he never said that it was only a matter of local government; what he said was: "This would be generally regarded throughout the country as a blow at local government." If I may say so, I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, in the speech he delivered to-day, took sufficient account of that aspect. I do not think it is one which we can ignore. He was obviously and naturally concerned with the technical aspect. He looked at it with great experience from the professional point of view. I do not seek to compete with him on those lines at all, but I think that we, as Parliament, before we agree to a very considerable change, ought to have some evidence that the ex-officio magistrates do their job badly. If there were evidence that they were making a complete failure of their task, that would be a matter we must take into account; but I have not heard a word this afternoon even to seek to suggest that. That is not an argument on which the change is supported.

Moreover, appointment as a magistrate, has been referred to as an honour, and it is said it ought not to be an honour. I do not regard it merely as an honour; I regard it as an extension of the function of this office, and personally I do not think it is an illegitimate extension. These mayors and chairmen of local benches are presumably intelligent men, otherwise they would not be where they are, and unless it is proved to the satisfaction of Parliament that there is urgent need or even material need for this change, I do not think, taking into account the other considerations which I have suggested, that the change would be justified. I do not dispute the suggestion the Lord Chancellor makes under paragraph (a), which is a different point altogether. That is a case of a man who is no longer mayor. The point of local government does not arise there. He having ceased to be mayor, I think it is obviously right that he should not continue to enjoy this particular extension of the function of that office. It has been suggested that it may be possible to make some differentiation, as has been mad & this afternoon, between the mayor and the chairman of the local authority. While I think that is an argument which may well be put forward, for the reasons stated I do not make that differentiation myself. If one is fit to sit, the other is probably fit to sit. Therefore, I do not hold that view. But I do urge the Committee to think carefully before making a very considerable change which would cause utmost resentment and which I do not think is justified by the existing facts.

LORD LATHAM

I would like to support the Amendment moved by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. As one who has some experience of local authorities which is not confined to the London County Council, and who has had the privilege of serving as a member of an urban district council and also when it became a non-county borough, I would venture to warn the Committee against the danger of seeking to differentiate between mayors, whether of county boroughs (many of whom, of course, have historical charters), of non-county boroughs (which do not really differ in any great essential from urban district councils, whether as to powers or otherwise), and chairmen of urban district councils or, indeed, of rural district councils.

The noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, referred to an urban district council having a population of some 217,000. I believe there are several with populations in excess of 150,000, and the responsibilities of those chairmen are not less but certainly equal to, arid in many cases more than, the responsibilities of a small county borough—an all-purpose authority with a population in some cases of substantially less than 30,000. While, therefore, I support the Amendment moved by the noble arid learned Viscount, I regret that I shall be unable to stay and vote against the next Amendment standing in the name of Lord Merthyr, who seeks at this stage to differentiate between mayors and chairmen of district councils. I think that differentiation would be most unwise. There may be a case for saying that neither the mayor nor the chairman of a local authority shall have any special right to be a member of the bench—that is a clear case which one can argue. But I can see no case for seeking arbitrarily to differentiate between a mayor and the chairman of an urban or rural district council.

LORD SCHUSTER

I am most unwilling to prolong this debate, but Lord Merthyr and I have striven together on this subject for so many years and we have both dealt with so many recommendations that it would be cowardly to keep silent. Furthermore my noble Leader has provoked me to do what neither Lord Merthyr nor I were disposed to do —namely, to give positive reasons why an ex-officio justice should not be upon the commission of the peace. The first reason, which I think may be some guide to the Committee, is that one Commission and one Committee have each exhaustively considered this matter, have considered plenty of evidence on the subject and have brought to it great experience; and they have recommended that these people should not he upon the commission of the peace. The second is that which probably all of us who have had to do with magisterial benches know perfectly well, and it was considered as long ago as the time of Lord James of Hereford's Committee—namely, the retention or introduction, directly or indirectly, of the elective principle in the appointment of magistrates. Lord James of Hereford's Committee did not recommend that those ex-officio justices who were already there by Statute should be taken off. They considered very carefully whether the list should be enlarged; they pronounced against the principle; and they pronounced in favour of retaining only those who were there, because they were there.

Everybody knows now that a great mass of the work that comes before any bench, whether in a borough or county, originates in one way or another with the local authority, and many of us hold that for that reason, if for that reason only, the local authority should be very sparsely represented, if at all, on the bench. I say "very sparsely represented." Of course, in effect, they are not represented at all, because anybody who sits upon a bench represents nothing. What I meant was that, particularly in regard to the borough bench or the county bench, there will always be a great number (and in some cases perhaps a majority) of justices who 'have taken in the past or are at the present taking part in local government. It is by taking part in local government that, as a rule, a man manages to engage the attention or catch the eye of the advisory committee. He is given an opportunity of showing that he takes an interest in public affairs—it may perhaps be even an impartial interest in public affairs, though that by no means follows. He then gets on the bench. Supposing all advisory committees do their duty, which probably we must assume, and under the guardianship of their chairman they come to the conclusion that he is a right person to be put upon the bench, they recommend him to the Lord Chancellor, in whose hands there rests complete dominion as to whether he shall or shall not be appointed. That is a very different thing from reaching the bench by way of either direct or indirect election—unless you say that the Lord Chancellor is indirectly elected.

It is very inconvenient indeed on any bench, whether borough or county, that there should be a number of people who are disqualified for dealing with cases which come before the bench. It is easy enough to say that the mayor or chairman should stand down when there is a summons which is issued on behalf of the corporation, the urban district council or the rural district council, and it may be right to say that one or perhaps two justices, can 'be spared though some benches are so considerably cut down now that it will not be quite so easy as in the past. But the chairman also has colleagues, and there are many cases in which those colleagues are also subject to that technical bias—I am not making any unpleasant suggestion—and it may be difficult to man the bench. For those two reasons, because I think the thing is wrong in itself as being the elective principle; because it is likely to weaken the bench when they have to deal with many cases which come before them, and also because it appeared to the Commission and the Committee of which I have spoken, on substantial reasons, that this change should he made, I say that these ex-officio justices should not be upon the bench.

I was going to make an appeal to Lord Merthyr myself (although it is difficult to do so after listening to Lord Latham) and suggest that if the mayor were left ex officio, though Lord Merthyr and I would be departing front the principle for which we have striven, we should not be doing much harm. The mayor would be one ex-officio member, and one only. He would come with the historic prestige of the old charter that put him there, and we should be showing reverence to history, which it is particularly fitting for this House to do. But when it comes to these other people—about whom I do not wish to speak disrespectfully—it is an entirely different matter. They are the creation of the Statute passed sixty years ago. And when it comes to a question of a county bench situated in areas which are composed largely of urban districts there may well be on the bench a majority of local authority ex-officio magistrates. Therefore, what I have pressed upon my noble friend Lord Merthyr—though his stern spirit is such that he will not give way to me—is that we should make no attempt to remove the mayor but should be satisfied to have it conceded that he shall be kept off the bench during the year after his term of office; we should, however, make an effort to remove the chairmen of urban and district councils.

I am bound to repudiate in the most explicit manner, the suggestion made by Lord Latham that there is anything illogical about such a course. But even if there were I should not worry. Logic does not enter into this matter at all; our institutions are not founded on logic; they are founded on questions partly of history and partly of expediency of the moment. We cannot go back over the past now and begin worrying over whether these things in their origin were logical or illogical. The question which we have to consider is what is the best set-up for the particular need which now faces us. Therefore, with great respect to Lord Latham, and while paying tribute to his great experience and knowledge I would ask the Committee to disregard the particular argument which he raised on this matter. No doubt it will seem very disrespectful of me to be talking like this, when I ought to be up supporting my noble Leader, whose steps I have for so long followed with diligence and reverence, but this is a question to which I have devoted much time and, so far as my brain is capable of it, a great deal of thought; and I could not see my noble friend Lord Merthyr stand alone in this matter. What I want to suggest to Lord Merthyr now is the possibility that we might "speak with our enemy in the way" and arrive at some arrangement whereby the mayor is left to disport himself on the county bench so long as we get rid of the urban and district council chairmen.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I would like to ask the Lord Chancellor one question before he replies. If paragraph (b) were deleted from his new clause would not a mayor still go on sitting as a county magistrate? So far as one can see, everyone else is to continue on the local commission of the peace.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I must say that I feel that this is a very difficult question, and it is one which has given me a great deal of anxiety. I do not believe that we should differentiate. It is the fact, of course—let me recall it to your Lordships' memory—that the du Parcq Commission did differentiate. They differentiated between the mayor and the chairmen of the county and district councils. On the other hand, as the noble Viscount Lord Swinton said, and as I also said—for I hastened to agree with him—I do not believe that we should differentiate. Let me tell your Lordships of my own experience. I have, of course, had cases of mayors who have not been fit to sit on the bench. There have been some mayors whom I would never have dreamt of appointing if they had not gone on to the bench by reason of their holding the mayoralty. But I must say that in my term of office I have not had a chairman of a county council, or so far as I can recollect for the moment— save one —a chairman of a district council, whom I considered unfit to sit upon a bench. Therefore I should not assert a priori that one of these ex-officio magistrates would be worse, or would be likely to be worse, than one of the magistrates appointed by me (I have to rely upon my advisory committee in making appointments, of course; I myself know nothing about these men); nor do believe that anyone else could.

It seems to me that if we are to differentiate, so that mayors continue to sit on benches and these others go off, that would be likely to be more resented than anything else. After all, in England chairmen of county councils were put on the bench by the Local Government Act of 1888, arid chairmen of district councils by the Local Government Act of 1894. In Scotland, chairmen of parish councils were put on by the Act of 1894. When district councils which replaced parish councils were set up in Scotland, by the Act of 1929, chairmen of district councils were made ex-officio magistrates. I believe that we shall be wrong if we differentiate between one group of these people and another. I think that either they should all be on the bench or all be off. I have already expressed my view that this cannot be considered solely from the point of view of the administration of justice.

LORD MERTHYR

Will the noble and learned Viscount forgive me for interrupting him? I suggest that mayors were made county magistrates in 1894, and not before.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

If the noble Lord has looted that up, then I am sure that that is right. That means that they were made magistrates at the same time as chairmen of district councils, which may well be so.

Lord Llewellin asked me a question to which the answer, I think, is this. The actual effect of Lord Merthyr's Amendment would be to leave the mayor in a borough that did not possess a commission of the peace a justice for the county. The Amendment of Lord Merthyr does not make the proposed change in the Local Government Act. It seems to me a rather unsatisfactory state of affairs because this matter is regulated, of course, by the Local Government Act. That Act says that a mayor of a non-county borough shall, in addition, during his term of office, be a justice of the peace for the county in which the borough is situated. The effect of my Amendment is to alter these two clauses. If the clause to which I have referred is left I suppose the mayor will still be a justice of the county. The matter will be in a complete state of obscurity and confusion. I therefore suggest to your Lordships that we should not accept Lord Mertahyr's Amendment, which would make the whole matter obscure, and that when we come to the later Amendments, just as we have preserved the position of the mayor for his year of office so also we should preserve the position of the chairmen of county and district councils.

LORD MERTHYR

May I say, first of all, that I have an Amendment down on the next page of the Marshalled List which puts that last point right. If paragraph (b) is left out and my Amendment on page 2—which is complementary—is carried, the position will be made clear and put right. May I add just a few words on one or two other small points? First, let me say that we are not dealing with local government but with the administration of justice. If it were suggested in a debate on local government that the chairman of the justices should ex officio be a member of the council, there would be some point in discussing the matter. But whatever we decide this afternoon will not make the slightest difference to local government one way or another. No part of the work of any council will be affected in the slightest degree. In the second place, great play has been made of the value of tradition in this matter. I heard the principal defender of tradition in your Lordships' House, the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, applauding when this was said. But the tradition which the noble Lord was so valiantly defending is not so old as he is himself. It was only under the Local Government Act of 1894, that the mayor was made a justice of the peace for the county. Therefore, I submit that the whole point about tradition—it was so well dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Schuster—does not apply at all in this particular connection.

Thirdly, I would plead "not guilty" to the charge of differentiation, of which the noble Lord, Lord Latham, accused me. If the noble Lord will look at my Amendments on page 2 of the Marshalled List, I think he will agree at once that I do not differentiate. I treat the mayor, the chairman of the district council and the chairman of the county council all alike. I wish to see them all removed from the bench. It is only because I have put down two Amendments, instead of one, that the impression of differentiation has been created. Finally, may I ask your Lordships to pay attention to what was said on the last occasion by the noble and learned Lord Chief Justice, whose arguments should carry great weight. The vast majority, if not all, of the lawyers in this House want this Amendment, and I think there are cogent reasons why their views should be heeded.

LORD HARLECH

Having taken part in the previous discussion, I should like to say a word. I want this Bill; but we have to be practical politicians. Therefore, though I support a good deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, says, the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor has managed to some extent, certainly as regards mayors, to meet us, and I think that is the most we can achieve. I do not believe this is the final word. As I am on my feet may I answer the noble Lord, Lord Latham? I profoundly regret that this Government have scrapped the Boundary Commission, because there is great difficulty in considering this matter of ex-officio justices. On the one hand, there are large district councils, some of which have sufficient population to be made county boroughs, and, on the other, there are many fantastically small rural and urban district councils, often of less than 1,000 population and in some cases well under 2,000 where, under the tradition of democratic local government, the chairmen change every year. There are instances of a little county town which has a separate urban district council of its own and which is surrounded by a rural district council; and the chairmen of both these councils, however unqualified, are ex-officio magistrates on the same local bench that meets in that little county town. And that, arising from that perpetual change of chairmanship, there will occur cases of unsuitable ex-officio magistrates is inevitable.

Therefore, I should like to see a reconsideration of the size of the local government authority (it may not be possible under this Bill) whose chairman is allowed to be an ex-officio magistrate. So long as we perpetuate this huge number of tiny local authorities, we shall have bad administration of local government, as well as this impingement on the administration of justice. Further than that, as between the chairman of a county council and the chairman of one of these small district councils, there is often a vast difference in the quality of the men. Those of us who are concerned with the administration of distant counties—I am not speaking of great counties like Middlesex, which is highly urbanised—hope that this is not the last word of the noble and learned Viscount. On this occasion, in spite of my sympathies with the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, I am disposed to take everything we can get in the direction of differentiating between the administration of justice and local government, because increasingly it happens that local government is a party to all too many matters that come before the magistrates' courts. That alone will make a change in all these matters. I see it happening daily. On this Amendment, I feel I must support the noble

and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, but I hope that, if not in this Bill then on some other occasion, there will be some reform, either of the local government system or of the ex-officio rights of members of urban or rural district councils, in order to remove the worst anomalies that exist at the present time.

LORD WINSTER

I am hound to say that in this matter I support the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr. What we appear to be discussing is whether certain gentlemen who have attained a certain office in the local authority shall be appointed ex officio to the bench by virtue of having attained that office. Surely these gentlemen have been in public life in the locality for many years. During that time either they have not commended themselves to the advisory committee for recommendation to the Lord Chancellor as justices, or the Lord Chancellor has not seen fit to endorse their recommendation by the advisory committee. Now it is suggested that we should say, because, owing to seine twist or turn in local politics, these gentlemen are elected to a certain position, that either the action of the advisory committee, in not recommending them or the action of the Lord Chancellor in not accepting the committee's recommendation shall be overturned, and that ex officio they shall be placed on the bench. I cannot believe that is right. I cannot believe that that is in accordance with the principles on which justice should be administered from the bench.

On Question: Whether paragraph (b) shall stand part of the proposed new clause?

Their Lordship; divided: Contents, 30; Not-Contents, 7.

CONTENTS>
Jowitt, V. (L. Chancellor.)	Maugham, V.	Gifford, L.
	St. Davids, V.	Goddard, L.
Addison, V. (L. Privy Seal.)		Greville, L.
	Leicester, L. Bp.	Harlech, L.
Exeter, M.,	Winchester, L. Bp.	Hawke, L.
Salisbury, M.		Holden, L.
	Balfour of Inchrye, L.	Hylton, L.
Fortescue, E.	Brassey of Apethorpe, L.	Kershaw, L. [Teller.]
Grey, E.	Calverley, L.	Llewellin, L.
Halifax. E.	Chorley, L.	Rochester. L.
Howe, E.	Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clan-william.)	Shepherd, L. [Teller.]
		Wright. L.
Long, V.
NOT-CONTENTS
Carlisle, E.	Merthyr,L. [Teller.]	Saltoun, L. [Teller.]
	Monkswell, L.	Winster, L.
Boyle,L.(E. Cork and Orrery.)	Schuster, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment to the Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

3.56 p.m.

LORD MERTHYR moved, after Clause 1, to insert the following new clause:

Chairman of County and District Council not to be justice of the peace ex officio

(". Subsection (5) of section three of the Local Government Act. 1933 (which provides that the Chairman of a County Council shall by virtue of his office be a justice of the peace for the County) and subsection (5) of section thirty-three of the Local Government Act, 1933 (which provides that a Chairman of a District Council shall by virtue of his office be a justice of the peace for any county in which the district is wholly or partly situate) shall cease to have effect.")

The noble Lord said: I do not want to waste the time of the Committee, but I wish now to move the first of the next three Amendments standing in my name. In order to clarify the position, may I say this. I shall not move the third Amendment, nor shall I move the second, because that is consequential upon the Division which has just been taken. There remains only the first Amendment. This deals exclusively with the chairmen of county councils and the chairmen of district councils. It does not deal with mayors in any way at all. I understand there are some noble Lords who would like to see the chairmen of county councils on the bench, but not chairmen of district councils. I do not wish to alter this Amendment now, but if any noble Lord wishes to do so, it can be done either now or on the Report stage. I wish still to be consistent as regards the chairmen of county councils and district councils. As I understand there are a number of noble Lords who, with the Royal Commission, desire that chairmen of district councils should not he on the bench, in spite of the fact that mayors are, I move this Amendment. I think the arguments are by this time familiar, and I do not wish to repeat them.

Amendment moved— After Clause 1, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Merthyr.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I think we have threshed this matter out. I devoutly hope that in our Division Lobbies we may succeed in reaching a total of thirty; if not, by the Rules of the House, all further proceedings on the Bill are adjourned, and the Bill is finished. I regard the time we are taking as most serious from the point of view of destroying the slender chance of getting the Bill through. Therefore, I will say what I have to say quite simply. I believe it is wrong to differentiate. So far as chairmen of county councils are concerned, if they are not already on the bench (I have not checked up, but I imagine they often are) I should think they would be able to render quite useful service. I am certain that to take off the chairmen of district councils would be regarded as a blow to local government. For my part, if that is to be done, it will be done by somebody other than myself.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 2 [Disqualification in certain cases of justices who are members of local authorities]:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This is merely a drafting Amendment. Paragraph (a) will now be included in the definition clause. I am moving a new Amendment to cover the point. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 31, leave out paragraph (a).—(The Lord Chancellor.)

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3:

Supplemental List.

(2) A person who is appointed justice of the peace by the commission of the peace for any area, but whose name is for the time being entered in the supplemental list kept in connection with the commission, shall not by virtue of that appointment be qualified as a justice to do any act. except as mentioned in the next following subsection, or to be a member of any committee or other body.

(8) This section shall apply to a person who under the Local Government Act, 1933, the London Government Act, 1939, or the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947, is a justice of the peace for any area by virtue of his office as mayor, lord provost or provost or chairman of a local authority as if his appointment as justice by that Act were an appointment by the commission of the peace for the area.

THE MARQUESS OF EXETER

I put down this Amendment once again, because last time the noble and learned Viscount said he would consider the point. I merely put it down in order to jog his memory. It is with regard to justices, when they reach seventy-five years of age, being debarred from sitting on standing joint committees. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 3, line 28, at end insert— ("Provided that nothing in this subsection shall prevent or be deemed to prevent a justice of the peace whose name is so entered on the supplemental list from continuing to be a member of a standing joint committee.")—(The Marquess of Exeter.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My memory did not need to be jogged, because I have looked at this point. The noble Marquess will remember that when he made his observations and I said I would look at it, the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, said that he hoped sincerely I would not. I have looked at it, and I have come to the conclusion that I cannot help the noble Marquess on this point. I hope that both he and the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, will be satisfied.

The main function of the standing joint committee, after the magistrates' courts committees have taken over their responsibilities in relation to magistrates' courts, will be that of the police authority for the county. We feel that it would be better that the justices on the corn-mince should be justices below the age of seventy-five. If they are regarded as too old to administer justice, it is to be presumed that they are likely to be less effective members of the committee than younger men. The fact that county councillors are subject to no such limitation of age is no reason for making an exception in the case of this particular committee to the provisions of the clause, which apply to membership of all committees on which justices are represented. Indeed, to select the standing joint committee for exception would suggest that there is some special reason why aged justices should sit on this committee, though precluded from sitting on other committees. The noble Marquess's Amendment would allow the justice to continue, if elected, up to any age. I agree that it is rather hard luck that a justice now over seventy-five and doing good work should be turned off. But we cannot give existing members of the committee a charter to be members for their natural lives, and it is not worth while preserving their membership for the period for which they are appointed, because that is generally one year, or at most three years, and if they have to go off then they may as well go off now. I am sorry that I cannot accept the Amendment. I realise it is very hard luck in some cases, and that there are many exceptional cases of men well past the age of seventy-five who are still capable of performing their functions with the greatest efficiency, but I think we must feel that they are the exception which proves the rule.

THE MARQUESS OF EXETER

I thank the Lord Chancellor for what he has said. He has not met my point at all, but still that does not matter. A further point is with regard to subsection (2) where it says: …except as mentioned in the next following subsection, or to he a member of any committee or other body It seems to me that that covers parish councils and magisterial or judicial bodies.

LORD ROCHE

I called attention to this subsection and asked what it meant. I do not know now. Apart from the question raised by the noble Marquess, it is very undesirable that an Act of Parliament should be so obscure as this.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I will try to find better words.

THE MARQUESS OF EXETER

If the Lord Chancellor will look at it again and see whether he can make this matter a little clearer, I am quite prepared to withdraw my Amendment.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I remember my attention being called to those words and I thought they had been dealt with. I think they do offend, and I will see if I can get them improved.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This Amendment tries to meet a point suggested by the Lord Chief Justice, who pointed out that one of our most distinguished judges in criminal matters is over the age of eighty and has presided over trials for murder and the like. It does seem rather ridiculous that he should be enabled to do that and should not be able to sit as a magistrate in order to try somebody for riding a bicycle without a light. It is to meet that position that I have put down this subsection. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 4, line 40, at end insert— ("() This section shall not apply to any of the following persons as justices of the peace, namely, the Lord Chancellor, any Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, any judge of the Supreme Court, the Lord Justice General, the Lord Justice Clerk and any judge of the Court of Session.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)

LORD GODDARD

The Lord Chancellor has not quite met the point I raised. I understand that as long as a judge is a judge, he would remain on the commission of the peace. What I ventured to suggest was that if a judge ceased to be a judge he should be allowed to sit as justice of the peace after he retired. I ventured to suggest—I thought I had made it clear, but I could not have done—that the disqualification imposed by the age of seventy-five should not apply to a person who holds or has held high judicial office, so that a retired judge could still sit on the local bench in the area where he lived. I do not know whether the Lord Chancellor will accept the words, "hold or have held the following offices."

LORD ROCHE

That is what I wanted. This Amendment would rule me out, but I am not in the least concerned about that, because I do not want to sit. I ceased to be a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary in 1938, after I became seventy-five. I was still holding the office of magistrate and I hold it now, although I am past seventy-five. That is not by my own desire, but at the suggestion of many of the magistrates of my county, who said, "Do not retire, because it may be that in the case of illness we shall want you to go to quarter sessions to sit as chairman." I had made a note to ask the Lord Chancellor the question which the Lord Chief Justice has asked—namely, whether it should not read, "who hold or have held the offices."

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

If that is desired, let us put it in. Let the Amendment read as follows—and perhaps the Lord Chief Justice will check what I am saying: This section shall not apply to persons who hold or have held the following positions, namely, Lord Chancellor, Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, Judge of the Supreme Court, Lord Justice General, Lord Justice Clerk and Judge of the Court of Session. I am a little inclined to think that perhaps I had better move this on Report stage, because I shall then have it in more precise language. Drafting in this way while on one's feet, one is apt to make a mistake.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

Should it not be …all or any of the following positions…"?

LORD GODDARD

I suggest also: …or have held high judicial office as defined in the Appellate Jurisdiction Act…

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Let us leave the matter until the Report stage and I will look at it. I must say I am inclined to accept it, but I do not wish at present to commit myself absolutely. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clauses 4 to 7 agreed to.

Clause 8:

Area of commission

8.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, there shall be a separate commission of the peace for every county for every county borough, and there shall not be a commission of the peace or justices of the peace for any other area.

4.12 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1), after "borough" to insert: and for such non county boroughs as satisfy one of the following conditions, that is to say—

1. (a) that at the end of June nineteen hundred and forty-eight the borough had a separate commission of the peace and a population of fifty thousand or over;
2. (b) that at the end of that month the borough had a separate commission of the 237 peace and court of quarter sessions and a population of twenty-five thousand or over;
3. (c) that after the coming into force of this section His Majesty grants a separate commission of the peace to the borough under section one hundred and fifty-six of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882. on a petition made by the council at a time when the borough has a population of seventy-five thousand or over."

The noble and learned Viscount said: We come now to an Amendment which is likely to give rise to a good deal of discussion. I have attempted here to reproduce a suggestion that was made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roche, in an earlier discussion—with one qualification. I think the noble and learned Lord was picking up something which I myself had said. The suggestion is that I should have some kind of dispensing power. Having thought over the matter very carefully, I confess that the more I think of it the less I like it. I think it would place me in a most embarrassing position unless I were able to apply some definite canon. If I had to consider each particular case I should have to receive deputations, and it would be thought that I had been unfair in this or that respect. Therefore I have not incorporated that suggestion.

LORD ROCHE

Perhaps it would help the noble and learned Viscount if I say that he had misunderstood me. I did not make the suggestion and I do not approve of the idea; I agree with what the noble and learned Viscount is saying now.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The noble and learned Lord did suggest it.

LORD ROCHE

I did not mean to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I cannot judge what the noble and learned Lord meant, but he did say it. I think, as I have said, that he was seeking to meet a suggestion which I myself had made. I therefore hold him not guilty of any malice aforethought. I thought it right, as I was not precisely reproducing the results of the discussion, to make the distinction clear—not only for the noble and learned Lord, but for members of the Committee, for I am addressing the Committee. So long as we are all agreed, I am satisfied. Perhaps I might say a word or two about this suggestion. The noble and learned Lord will find what he said recorded in Col. 1121 of Hansard. His words were: We might well get rid of most of the quarter sessions in boroughs of under 25,000, subject to the discretion of the learned and noble Viscount the Lord Chancellor if the thought there was an important exception.

LORD ROCHE

Yes, as regards quarter sessions, I agree.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Let us examine this position. I have no doubt, and I believe that nobody who has held my position would have any doubt, that it is most desirable to get rid of separate commissions of the peace. In these comparatively small boroughs everybody knows everybody else's business—I am including Winchester, to which city it applies just as much as anywhere else. One of the essentials is that the proceedings of the advisory committee should he absolutely secret. If persons know that their names are put up to the advisory committee, and canvassed and discussed and turned down by that committee; or if they know that their names, having been discussed and passed by the advisory committee, are turned down by the Lord Chancellor, there is naturally a good deal of heartburning. In the latter cases they write to the Lord Chancellor and say, "What have I done? My name was passed by the advisory committee and when it comes up to you it is not accepted. What have you got against me?" That happens, inevitably, much more in a small borough than in the counties. I am not saying that it does not happen in the counties—I wish I could say that. But in the experience of all of us it happens much more in the small boroughs. Therefore, so far as I can, I want to get rid of separate commissions; and under the Roche Amendment, if I may so call it, I get rid of separate commissions in the boroughs with populations of under 50,000, except in the particular cases which are here mentioned, of which I think there are about fourteen.

The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin suggests in his Amendment that I should get rid of them even in those cases; and in that regard I confess that I prefer Lord Llewellin's Amendment to the one I am now moving, which reproduces what Lord Roche said on the last occasion. But that is not a very important matter, because it affects only some fourteen boroughs. I mention Lord Llewellin's Amendment because to discuss the acceptance of that Amendment involves a discussion of the whole principle. It brings in a new idea —that is to say, an appeal to a recorder, the recorder being based or standing upon a separate commission. This, of course, is a wholly new conception. The suggestion originally came from me. Lord Llewellin, in his drafting of the Amendment, has been assisted by Parliamentary draftsmen whom I lent him for this purpose, so I am not speaking with any disrespect of the Amendment. The noble Lord makes it quite plain that in the case of boroughs retaining quarter sessions without commissions of the peace, it …shall be the same as if the area of the borough extended to the whole of the petty sessional division or divisions in which the borough or any part thereof is situated: That is to say, there will be no cross-committals or cross-appeals. If, for instance, Winchester is extended by the magistrates' courts committee to include a large area of Hampshire, it would follow under Lord Llewellin's Amendment that all appeals from that area which used to embrace the borough of Winchester would go to the Recorder of Winchester, and all committals which did not go to sessions would, equally, go to the Recorder of Winchester.

That is the conception. It seems to me—and I have thought this matter over a good deal—that it has this great drawback: that if you are going to have the whole county considered again by the magistrates' courts committee, it might well be that they would be reluctant to arrange the county in the way I have suggested, knowing that any extra area given to Winchester would involve appeals being taken away from quarter sessions and going to the Recorder of Winchester. It might or might not be something which would operate on the minds of the magistrates' courts committee: I should myself imagine that it would.

LORD LLEWELLIN

It might operate both ways.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I agree; but that is a factor which one must bear in mind. That is all I have to say about them. I do not think there is any substantial difficulty in providing, as Lord Llewellin seeks to do with his Amendment at the bottom of page 17 of the Marshalled List, that there shall not be cross-appeals or cross-committals. I have received a great deal of correspondence about this matter, but in no single case, except that of Winchester, has any objection to my knowledge been made to the abolition of the separate commission of the peace. The objection which has been made is to the abolition of the recorder-ship. I still say that I cannot see what grievance anybody will have if, instead of having a separate borough commission, a borough justices' court becomes a division of the county.

Then there is another matter I must mention. I think the facts are significant, and I want to deal with them. Lord Llewellin's Amendment, which is the only alternative possible here, involves that twenty-four boroughs having recorders shall retain them—that is to say, that twenty-four more recorders shall continue in office; and they would function, of course, in what is now a county area. Your Lordships will find them enumerated at page 22 of the Marshalled list. Let us see what is the position of these twenty-four. I have analysed them carefully. There are eight—Barnstaple, Bideford, Faversham, Tiverton, Chichester, Oswestry, Wenlock and Berwick-onTweed—which, in the whole of 1947 and 1948, had a total of under eight cases each throughout the eight quarter sessions; that is four each year. The greatest number at any one place was at Berwick-on-Tweed, which had seven cases for trial. I include, of course, appeals and cases.

LORD ROCHE

In two years?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

In two years—that is to say, in eight quarter sessions—Berwick-on-Tweed, which was the highest of them, had five cases for trial in 1947 and two in 1948, making a grand total of seven. Wenlock had six, Oswestry five, Chichester five, Tiverton four, Faversham two, Bideford one and Barnstaple one. So it is obvious that the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, has cast his net too wide. What is the good of keeping, for instance, Barnstaple which had one appeal—and no case for trial at all —in the year 1948 and nothing in 1947; and Bideford which had one case for trial in 1948 and nothing in 1947? Then, if we pass over those eight, the next five come into the category of not having, on the average, two cases for each quarter sessions. They are: Stamford, Pontefract, Windsor, Warwick and Grantham. The highest that any of them had for the two years was fifteen. Your Lordships will observe that, in order to average two cases for each quarter sessions, there must have been sixteen cases.

The next group of boroughs—Newark, Bury St. Edmunds, Deal, Carmarthen, Banbury and Abingdon—had on the average fewer than three cases for each of the quarter sessions. The highest was Abingdon with twenty-two and your Lordships will see that three cases or appeals—I treat them equally—for each of the eight quarter sessions would make twenty-four. The next two are Newbury and Lichfield. Newbury had twenty-five and Lichfield had twenty-eight, spread over two years, which of course is under four for each quarter sessions. The only three I am sorry to see go, the three which seem to have made the most effective contribution of those on the list of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, are: Andover, forty-one; Penzance, forty-two, and Bridgwater, forty-four. Those three do seem to have made a substantial contribution. But, on the other hand, those which are condemned by everybody and which have to go (being under 10,000), include Devizes. And Devizes contributed eighty-nine, which is twice as many as any town on Lord Llewellin's list. Beyond argument, Devizes would go under both these Amendments. I cannot help feeling that it may well be that, if quarter sessions take over these cases, there is no reason why the sittings should not be at various places in the county. It may be that quarter sessions would sit at Bridgwater and Andover, and dispose of cases there. I do not know what circumstances may arise. That is a matter for consideration.

I think that what your Lordships felt about the undesirability of these very small recorderships is this. First, if the recorder is dealing with a criminal and wants to know what sentence he should give, since the proceedings last only one day as a rule, he cannot conveniently remand the case in order to hear further evidence or to obtain an expression of view from somebody as to what should be done. It is all very difficult, of course. But neither, in the nature of things, has the recorder time to "sleep on a case and think about it. That is another drawback to these small recorder-ships. A third factor is the criticism that juries have to be drawn from such a small area that they know too much about the case before they come into court. I have sympathy with the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, because, from my point of view, having to appoint (as I shall if this Bill ever passes) not only judges and county court judges but also stipendiaries, metropolitan magistrates and recorders, it is rather useful for me to be able to start these recorders in a small court to see whether they make good. Then I shall know more of my material and I shall be more likely to be right when I appoint them to a bigger court. There is that point of view of which your Lordships must not lose sight.

I am anxious to achieve the largest measure of agreement that I can on this Bill—that is why I am conducting it in the way I am—because it is my only chance of getting it through. If we send this Bill down more or less as an agreed Bill, I gather that there is still hope of getting it through another place. because all Parties there want it. Having regard to the weighty observations which were made by those who know very much more about this matter than I do, I thought I would reproduce in an Amendment the suggestion made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roche, at the end of our earlier discussions. It is simple; it is easily understood. That being so, I commend it to your Lordships, although I sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, and I can fully understand his reasons for putting down the other Amendment which, indeed, I suggested to him as a fair compromise at an earlier stage of the Bill. On the whole, I now recommend your Lordships to accept this Amendment. At any rate, I put it down for discussion in order that we may see what your Lordships think about it.

Amendment moved.— Page 7, line 11, after ("borough") insert the said words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

LORD SCHUSTER

I would like to ask the Lord Chancellor a question. I am afraid I am in a muddle. Winchester has a population of 27,000.

LORD ROCHESTER

Yes, and it thus escapes.

LORD SCHUSTER

I thought the Lord Chancellor was talking about Winchester in his speech. I could not understand why he took Winchester.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I took Winchester as an illustration.

LORD SCHUSTER

I am sorry.

LORD GODDARD

I hope your Lordships will accept the Lord Chancellor's Amendment, which would mean that Lord Llewellin's Amendment would not be accepted.

LORD LLEWELLIN

No, it does not.

LORD GODDARD

I should imagine it would follow logically—if we are logical for once—that we would not accept Lord Llewellin's Amendment.

LORD LLEWELLIN

May I interrupt the noble Lord? My Amendment can be accepted equally as well as the Lord Chancellor's. I am all in favour of the Lord Chancellor's Amendment, and if it came to a Division on that I should vote for it. My Amendment does not in the least contradict the Lord Chancellor.

LORD GODDARD

Perhaps I should reserve what I have to say about the retention of these small quarter sessions until Lord Llewellin moves his Amendment. With regard to the Lord Chancellor's Amendment, I hope the Committee will accept it, because I think it is not only a fair compromise but is the right thing. We shall keep the quarter sessions at the places that really need quarter sessions. We shall keep quarter sessions where there are a fair number of people who can be considered for appointment as justices of the peace and a fair number of people from whom juries can be drawn. I am glad that the Lord Chancellor has not taken any dispensing power himself. If he did, I think life for him would be made even more intolerable than it already is. I therefore hope your Lordship will accept the Lord Chancellor's Amendment as it stands.

LORD ROCHE

May I say exactly the same? I support this Amendment.

LORD MAUGHAM

I, too, am in favour of the Amendment by the Lord Chancellor.

LORD LLEWELLIN

So are we all, which is a very happy state of affairs, but we are all overlooking the fact that the Lord Chancellor's Amendment is far better, in all our views, than the words in the Bill as it originally came to us, which would have done away with all commissions of the peace of courts of quarter sessions other than those for county boroughs. That provision is now to be altered, I hope, in the way the Lord Chancellor's Amendment suggests. But, even so, on the Lord Chancellor's Amendment we are doing away with thirty-eight or thirty-seven existing courts of quarter sessions and recorders. We are depriving a number of men of income, without paying compensation to a single one. That is one thing we are doing, and we should realise that we are doing it. Although most of them are perhaps properous members of the Bar, we are suddenly taking away a part of their income by what we are doing in this measure. Now let us remember when we are dealing with these recorderships that the question of the abolition of the courts of quarter sessions has never been considered, either by the Roche Committee or by the du Parcq Commission. They did consider the size of commissions of the peace, but they never directed their attention or made any particular recommendations in regard to the abolition of the recorders and the courts of quarter sessions. And when I make that remark I am quoting the remarks made on Second Reading by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice. He went on to say: Abolish small boroughs if you will, but do consider which of these boroughs are doing really useful work with their courts of quarter sessions. He further said: Remember this, if I may say so with respect; the work of county quarter sessions —indeed, of all quarter sessions—has enormously increased in recent years. Then he quotes himself as a young man going to Salisbury and draws attention to the fact that a number of those who man county quarter sessions may not have the time to go and sit there and take in the extra work which will come to them if there is too great a slaughter of existing courts of quarter sessions and recorders.

Now the noble and learned Viscount, who spoke quite fairly about these matters, said that if a recorder had only one or two cases in his list, he seldom put a prisoner over for the next day. But, if a recorder does not try that man, who is going to do it? The court of the county quarter sessions? But those courts have to deal with prisoners in one day's hearing, because they can seldom muster the, same bench to sit on the second day. Obviously, it is important that all the persons who have heard the evidence and what the police or probation officer or whoever else has been called, have had to say, should form the same bench. But it is seldom that the whole of that bench is present if the quarter sessions goes on for a second or third day.

The noble and learned Lord Chancellor said he had attempted to reproduce what Lord Roche had suggested, with one exception, which he pointed out. I find myself in exactly the same position in regard to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. It was the Lord Chancellor's suggestion that a good compromise would be getting rid of commissions of the peace for non-county boroughs with populations of under 50,000. and keeping recorders for boroughs with populations above 10,000. I appreciate that since then he has been able to go more accurately into the figures than perhaps he had been when he made the suggestion. But what is going to happen? It may sound all right, but we must analyse these figures a little more closely than has been done. We have to find how many of these cases would go to and choke up a county quarter sessions, because they may make a great deal of difference to the local county quarter sessions. Therefore, whichever method is adopted to deal with these cases can he attacked in some way and it can be said that there is an anomaly.

If one looks at the number of cases that have been heard at, let us say, Canterbury, one would find immediately that great relief had been afforded to the Kent Quarter Sessions. It could probably be said that each of these places had made a contribution of only four or ten or whatever the number may be, but altogether they are making a real contribution which I believe will help us still to preserve the county quarter sessions without a great number of paid chairmen and paid officials running them. I still believe in having our justice administered non-professionally in a large number of courts in this country.

The second thing it will do, as the noble and learned Viscount said, is to make a training ground and trial ground for more of the recorders. The third thing which I believe it will do is this—and here anybody is as good a judge as I am. Speaking as one who spent sixteen years in another place, I must warn you that if you take away the recorders from thirty-eight towns there will be at least thirty-eight Members of Parliament who will get up and talk about it, and they will probably get some other Members for the county to talk about it also, and you will be faced with a kind of controversial Bill: whereas if my Amendment were accepted the Bill would, I am certain, have much more chance of passing through both Houses of Parliament this Session. Until now we never heard of any great injustices occurring in these places, or of difficulties in getting a jury. With great respect to noble Lords who have commented on these juries knowing too much about the case, I would say that I believe that the ordinary Englishman does his duty when he is called to serve upon a jury and solemnly to swear an oath to do justice "between our Sovereign Lord the King and the prisoner at the bar." I rather resent these innuendoes that because a man lives in a small borough he is less likely to keep to the terms of his oath than a man who has not heard so much about the case. I believe that juries do their best impartially to administer justice.

What we are faced with to-day is really a fight, and an important fight as I believe, to see whether we are going to offend all these ancient boroughs, some of them rather small, by taking away from them a court of quarter session which they have had in some cases for three or four hundred years and about. which the Roche Report and the Report of the Royal Commission say nothing as to their being abolished, or as to their being in any way a blot on the administration of criminal law in this country. Therefore I think we ought not to abolish as many of these recorders as we shall de if even the Lord Chancellor's Amendment is accepted. I believe they still perform an extremely useful service in the country. I agree with the Lord Chancellor that it does no harm to a borough magistrate to find that in future he will be on the commission of the peace for the county and not on the commission of the peace for his small borough; but I believe that it will cause great resentment in all these towns if they are deprived of their own court of quarter session and their own recorder.

In regard to my Amendment, the Lord Chancellor has kindly drawn attention to the fact that it avoids any question of a cross-appeal from the same bench, or appeals to two different places. He is probably satisfied that this is a workable method. I believe that, having regard to the fact that nothing has been said against them in any of these Reports, we should not be content suddenly to abolish the offices of some thirty-eight men without any compensation and to deprive thirty-eight towns of a court they have had for years—a court which has been of real relief to county quarter sessions and a good trial ground for many men who afterwards have become successful High Court Judges.

If it is convenient, I would like to leave out the first Amendment in my name on the Marshalled List, as I am told it is in the wrong place, but to move my second Amendment which I am told should be to page 7, line 12. That is the main Amendment we have been discussing on this matter. If I may, I will move that Amendment.

LORD ROCHESTER

May I suggest that we should get rid of the Lord Chancellor's Amendment, because Lord Llewellin's Amendment is an addition thereto?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I moved my Amendment. I do not know what is right in the matter of procedure. It is not the case that Lord Llewellin's Amendment is an addition; it is really a subtraction or a proviso which takes out a good many boroughs which otherwise would be included. However, I want to correct one point if I may. I told the Committee that apart from Winchester I had not received any letter of complaint about the separate commissions of the peace. The Committee might naturally think that I was talking for my office. I am told that in the office we have had one or two, but that the Home Office have been inundated with them. I should be giving a wrong impression unless I made it plain that I was speaking for myself in my personal capacity.

LORD LLEWELLIN

Was I wrong in trying to move my Amendment at this stage? If so, I apologise.

LORD ROCHESTER

I desire to speak to the Lord Chancellor's Amendment. I was disturbed and distressed by the Bill as it was first introduced, and I am indeed grateful to the Lord Chancellor for his Amendment, which I support without reservation. Having said that, I desire to say a word about Lord Llewellin's position, because I feel I am indebted to the noble Lord—

LORD GODDARD

Not yet. He has not moved his Amendment yet.

LORD ROCHESTER

Forgive me. I feel most indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, because in his original Amendment he inserted the figure of 25,000 which is now adopted by the Lord Chancellor as part of his Amendment. I sought to see whether there was any way of helping Lord Llewellin, in his list, because he has helped me, and I found three instances, strangely enough, the three mentioned by the Lord Chancellor—first Andover with 41 cases; second, Penzance with 42 cases; and third, Bridgwater with 44 cases. I wondered whether if the number in the Bill were reduced to 20,000 it would help Lord Llewellin; but then I found that in the case of Andover the population is only 14,000, so it would not help them. It would cover only Bridgwater and Penzance. I looked at the figure of 20,000 because the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, in his original speech—I am quoting from the OFFICIAL REPORT for October 20, Column 1083—said: I would like to see a figure of 20,000, or something like that— Though he was moving an Amendment embodying a limit of 25,000— as the qualification for having a recorder in the town. When I looked at the 20,000 which he then suggested, I found that it did not save his position. I feel, therefore, with the best will in the world, that I am unable to support Lord Llewellin's Amendment. I agree that I am anticipating its being moved, but I want to emphasise that I feel that the Lord Chancellor's Amendment is a very fair compromise and has gone a long way to meet the situation in which we find ourselves.

THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER

May I say this, on the Amendment which has been moved by the Lord Chancellor? I also feel deeply grateful to him for the courtesy and consideration with which he has dealt with this subject, and for his exemplary patience throughout. Your Lordships must be sick of the mention of the name of the city of Winchester, but I beg you to believe that in references I have made to it I have been interested not in that one city but in the general principles of which it offers us a convenient example.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I have made my speech, and I beg to move my next Amendment.

Amendment moved—

Page 7, line 12, at end, insert— ("Provided that this subsection shall not affect the existing grant of quarter sessions to a borough having at the end of the said month a population of ten thousand or over.)"—(Lord Llewellin.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

May I say this in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester? I think the noble Lord was being very irregular, in speaking as he did, and I suspect that I am being irregular now. If we moved down to the 20,000 limit it would save the following six boroughs which are in Lord Llewellin's list: Pontefract, which has a population of 23,000; Windsor, which has a population of 22,000; Grantham, which has a population of 23,000; Newark, which has a population of 23,000; Bridgwater, which has a population of 22,000, and Deal, with a population of 23,000. It would not, so far as I can make out, save Penzance, which, according to the estimate of the Registrar-General, has a population of 19,600. Unless you are going to take the 20,000 and say "the borough which has a population to which that is the nearest round figure," Penzance will not be in.

LORD ROCHESTER

I was taking the figure which the Lord Chancellor gave to the noble Lord, Lord Schuster. The figure given for Penzance was 20,000.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Those figures are to the nearest thousand. The actual figure for Penzance is 19,600.

LORD ROCHESTER

With regard to the other point on boroughs with a 20,000 population I was taking only those boroughs that had had over forty cases, I felt that that helped in trying to justify further inclusions.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Andover is out because it has a population of only 14,000. Penzance is out for the reasons which I have given. The only one that comes in is Bridgwater.

LORD GODDARD

Perhaps I may throw a little light on the reason why Andover, Penzance and Bridgwater seem to have contributed so much. I am convinced that you will not find, if you go into the matter, that the cases they tried were borough cases. Penzance being right away in the west of Cornwall, and the Cornish quarter sessions being held at Bodmin, the most easterly part of the county, there is, of course, a great tendency to send cases from the west of Cornwall to Penzance. The real remedy is for Cornwall to hold quarter sessions at Truro—which is the proper county place. It is true that the court there is not so good as the Bodmin count, which is not in itself an especially good one. Bridgwater, again, is not a very criminal sort of place, but it happens to be the only town in the county of Somerset, with the exception of Bath, that has a recorder. There again, a great many county cases are sent there. Andover, of course, is near Salisbury Plain, where there are many young soldiers; and cases are sent there—it may well be that they are sent there perfectly properly—in order to get speedy trials.

As I ventured to suggest on the last occasion when this matter was discussed by the Committee, the Act of 1925, which enables county cases to be sent to borough or other sessions which would not otherwise try them, was never intended as a county sessions relief Act. It was intended merely to enable cases to be tried more quickly. A man might be sent for trial and the ordinary court of trial would be the county sessions or the county assizes. But if the county sessions or the assizes has just been held, it is possible under this Act for him to have his case tried at some other court. We have to find some yardstick by which this question is to be resolved. One person says 50,000 and another 25,000, and so it goes on. Lord Llewellin would like 10,000. while the Roche Committee expressed the opinion that a borough with a population of 25,000 was the smallest borough that should have a separate commission. I still think it is illogical and undesirable to have recorders unless the town has a borough commission. If we accept the Lord Chancellor's Amendment we keep to a sensible plan. It seems to me that all boroughs of 25,000 population with commissions, if they are quarter sessions boroughs, should keep both borough commissions and their recorders.

Lord Llewellin almost drew tears from some of your Lordships, I imagine, by pointing out how we are depriving recorders of a source of income. My withers are not wrung by that—and for this reason. In these small boroughs the remuneration of the recorder is very small, and by the time he has paid his railway fare and, if necessary, his hotel bill, there is precious little left. That is recognised at the Bar, as Bar counsel have told me. The recorder is not allowed to deduct his railway fare for the purposes of income tax. It was, I believe, decided in the case of the Recorder of Portsmouth, who was good enough to allow his case to be treated as a test case, that the only thing that the recorder could deduct was the cost of any stationery which he might use and something towards the wear and tear of his robes and trousers. That is all that can be deducted. In these days of increased railway fares and so forth, in the case of a recorder who is in receipt of a salary of £40 or £50 a year we are really doing a real service to him by taking away his recordership. As long as it remains, cases from the county will be sent to him. He will have to pay his railway fares and, as I have said, he cannot deduct them for income tax purposes, so that his recordership becomes almost an absolute loss. Therefore I do not think that that is a matter which need be considered at all.

One real point, which I still maintain ought to weigh with your Lordships, in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, has said about jurymen sworn to do justice between their Sovereign Lord, The King, and the prisoner at the bar, is that in these small courts there is a very real danger over the question of juries. A good many years ago, I went down to one of the boroughs which the noble Lord has put down in the Schedule as one of the boroughs to be retained—I am not going to mention which one—to defend a man on a charge of embezzlement. I went down with the idea that I should have to advise my client to plead guilty, because I could not think of anything to say for him. But when I got there, I was told I need not worry. I had only to put up a show and all would be well. And all was well. It was obvious from the interlocutory remarks which the jury made as soon as the case was opened that the jury knew exactly what they were going to do, whatever the evidence. And they did it. And I received a certain amount of credit for it, I suppose, as well as my fee!

Seriously, I believe that these small boroughs are not satisfactory places in which to have separate courts of quarter session. As I said last time, we cannot have any reform without interfering with some vested interest or treading on somebody's toes. We have to settle this matter somehow, and I venture to think that if we accept the Lord Chancellor's Amendment for the figure of 25,000, that is the most satisfactory thing that can be done.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I feel very strongly on this point. Of course, I went down to 10,000 only because I was taking up a suggestion made by the noble and learned Viscount opposite. I still feel that 25,000 is too high. Because the last thing I want to see, as all your Lordships know, is failure to get on with this Bill, I suggest it might be convenient to your Lordships to see whether we could not obtain complete agreement before Report stage on some figure of 20,000 or upwards, which at any rate would preserve one or two of these courts which are doing a very useful job of work. Everybody has the right to put down an Amendment on the Report stage, but we had agreed that we should bring forward as little as possible to the Report stage. I should be very sorry if by taking this to a Division now, we did not get ahead with the Bill and on that understanding I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The next Amendment explains itself. Obviously there must be some standard by which to judge, and the standard I suggest is that the population shall be ascertained according to estimates of the Registrar-General. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 7, line 40, at end insert— ("() For the purposes of this section the population at any time of a borough shall be ascertained according to the estimates of the registrar-general. () The boroughs retaining their existing commissions of the peace by virtue of paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) of this section are those named in the Schedule (non-county boroughs retaining commissions of peace) to this Act.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)

Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9 [Justices and courts in London]:

LORD CHORLEY moved to add to the clause:

Page 9, line 4, at end insert— ("(9) Section forty-two of the Metropolitan Police Courts Act, 1839 (which limits the cases in which fees may be taken in proceedings before justices in the metropolitan stipendiary court area), shall cease to have effect, but justices acting for arty petty sessional division of the county of London (not being metropolitan stipendiary magistrates) shall comply with any order of the Secretary of State as to the classes of proceedings which should or should not be taken by them. (10) Nothing done by any such justices shall he invalidated by reason of any non-compliance with an order under the last foregoing subsection. (11) Any such order shall be made by statutory instrument and may he varied or revoked by a subsequent order.")

The noble Lord said: During the Committee stage the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, moved the repeal of Section 42 of the Metropolitan Police Courts Act of 1839, pointing out that it was anomalous that lay justices' clerks in London should be prohibited from taking fees in the ordinary way for work which they did as justices' clerks. The noble Viscount's observations were supported by the noble Lord, Lord Schuster. My impression was that the view of the noble Lords was that these fees went to the justices' clerks themselves, whereas they go to the local funds.

LORD SCHUSTER

That is a very curious impression, because the justices' clerks tell me they receive them.

LORD CHORLEY

My information is that they are paid into the local funds out of which justices' clerks are paid.

LORD SCHUSTER

I think the bankers of the justices' clerks are under a different impression.

LORD CHORLEY

Be that as it may, the Government appreciated the force of the Amendment in respect of fees being paid for work which is done. The objection to the noble Viscount's Amendment was that by removing the restriction under the words of his Amendment, it would open the work of these courts to the lay justices on the same basis as in the stipendiary courts. I think the noble Viscount saw the force of that and agreed to withdraw his Amendment, provided at the next stage the Government would put down an. Amendment to deal with the position. This Amendment has been drafted with that aim in view.

Your Lordships will see it provides that the delegation of work between the lay justices and the stipendiaries shall he carried through on the basis of a decision made by the Home Secretary. Perhaps I ought to explain that under the Report of the Maxwell Committee it is hoped that in due course it will be possible to have the lay justices and the stipendiaries sitting in the same court-house so that there will be the possibility of an inter-charge of work. That would obviously lead to a considerable improvement in the administration of justice and in the general efficiency of the courts. Without some provision of this kind people would be able to choose whether they should go to a lay justices' court or a stipendiary's court, which I am sure your Lordships will agree would be an undesirable thing. It would also mean that various services, such as the work of the probation officer, would have to be duplicated, which would be an unjustifiable expense at the present time. In these circumstances, I am sure your Lordships will agree that the method chosen to deal with this matter is the right one. I hope your Lordships will accept this Amendment as now drafted

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 4, at end insert the said new subsections.—(Lord Charley.)

LORD SCHUSTER

I was entirely mistaken when I contradicted the noble Lord. I was thinking of another Amendment in which I have a deeper interest, in which case the fees are not paid over. In this case the fees are paid over to the local fund. I am very grateful to the noble Lord.

LORD CHORLEY

I am obliged to the noble Lord. His information confirms what I have been told.

Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.

5.10 p.m.

LORD CHORLEY moved, after Clause 9 to insert the following new clause:

Licensing authorities for non-county boroughs

".—(1) For the purposes of the Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910, as respects licensing districts being non-county boroughs—

1. (a) the licensing justices shall be for all purposes the borough licensing committee;
2. (b) the confirming authority shall be a committee of the borough justices; and
3. (c) the compensation authority shall be the county confirming and compensation committee of the county in which the borough is situated.

(2) Section forty of the Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910, as set out in the Second Schedule to the Licensing Act, 1949 (which relates to the disqualification of justices), and section twelve of the Licensing Act, 1949 (which relates to the constitution and procedure of licensing authorities in county boroughs), shall apply in relation to a non-county borough having a separate commission of the peace and to the confirming authority in such a borough as they apply in relation to a county borough and the confirming and compensation committee in a county borough.

(3) The justices of any non-county borough shall be entitled to appoint one of their number to act on the county confirming and compensation committee when the committee is discharging functions as compensation authority (whether for the county or for any borough situated therein), and for the purpose of those functions any justice so appointed shall be deemed to be an additional member of the committee."

The noble Lord said: This Amendment makes provision as to licensing authorities in non-county boroughs. The Licensing Act, 1949, which was before your Lordships' House recently, made no provision for non-county boroughs, because at that time it was uncertain whether any non-county boroughs would continue to have their separate commissions. The provisions which are made in this case will apply to all these non-county boroughs which retain their commissions. I am sure your Lordships will agree that this is a necessary Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 9 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Chorley.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

This is obviously a point that had to be tidied up if we continue the commissions of the peace in non-county boroughs. We support this Amendment.

Clause 10 [Size and chairmanship of bench]:

LORD CHORLEY

I would like to deal with the next Amendment and the succeeding one together. During the Committee stage, your Lordships will remember, the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, moved an Amendment for the purpose of inserting in the Bill a requirement that the election of chairmen and deputy chairmen of benches should be carried out by secret ballot. As the clause stands this provision could be made (and it was, in fact, my noble and learned friend's intention to make it so) by secret ballot under the rules for which the Lord Chancellor will in due course be responsible. My noble and learned friend did say that he would be willing to provide in the Bill itself for the election by secret ballot, but he thought the right place for such provision was at the end of subsection (2) of Clause 10. The first of these two Amendments carries out the Lord Chancellor's suggestion. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 11, at end insert ("by secret ballot").—(Lord Chorley.)

LORD O'HAGAN

I should just like to say how much I appreciate—as I am sure all noble Lords do—the way in which the Lord Chancellor has met us over this matter. I have no doubt that the form of words suggested is much better than that in the Amendment which I put down.

LORD CALVERLEY

I should like to say that the Commission were unanimous on this point. Even Lord Merthyr supported us.

LORD CHORLEY

This Amendment is really consequential on the last. It provides merely that the actual method of election should be in accordance with the rules when they are promulgated. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 29, leave out ("manner of") and insert ("the procedure at an").—Lord Chorley.)

Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 11 agreed to.

Clause 12 [Rule committee and rules of procedure]:

LORD CHORLEY

The two amendments to Clause 12 are purely drafting Amendments. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 39, at end insert ("and the reference in the last foregoing section to paragraph 1 of the Second Schedule to the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, shall be taken as a reference to this section").—(Lord Chorley.)

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 4, after ("1906"), insert ("and in section thirteen of the Money Payments (Justices Procedure) Act, 1935").—(Lord Charley.)

Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 13:

Establishment of magistrates' courts committees

(2) There shall be a magistrates' courts committee for each county and for each county borough:

Provided that—

LORD CHORLEY moved, in subsection (2), at the end of proviso (b) to insert: and (c) there may be a separate magistrates courts' committee for a non county borough having a separate commission of the peace, if at the time of the establishment of the committee the borough has a population of seventy-five thousand or over. (3) Where a non county borough has for the time being a separate magistrates courts' committee, the jurisdiction of the borough justices as respects matters within their commission shall he exclusive of that of the justices for the county to the same extent as if the borough did not form part of the count.

The noble Lord said: The Roche Committee envisaged as your Lordships have heard only too frequently, that commissions of the peace of boroughs of under 25,000 population would be abolished, that boroughs with separate commissions between 25,000 and 75,000 population would he included for magistrates' courts purposes in the county, and that boroughs over 75,000 should have a separate magistrates' courts committee. In paragraph 103 of their Report they say: In boroughs with population of 75,000 and over (which will not some within grouping schemes, unless they wish to do so) the justices should be given such of the powers of a magistrates' courts committee as are applicable. This Amendment carries out the Roche Committee's suggestion that boroughs over 75,000 having a separate commission of the peace should be eligible to have a separate magistrates' courts committee. They will not have it as of right, and the Third Schedule in its new form provides that such a borough shall have a separate magistrates' courts committee if, but only if, it is for the time being so directed by an order of the Secretary of State, which can be made only on the application of the magistrates for the borough.

Whether the borough will be given a separate magistrates' courts committee will depend upon circumstances—for example, whether it has a whole-time clerk, and whether or not it seems desirable that the clerkship for the borough should be combined with any of the clerkships for the surrounding petty sessional division of the county. It can be said, however, that unless a non-county borough with a separate commission of the peace has a provision in its Charter excluding the jurisdiction in the borough of the county justices, the county justices have jurisdiction in the borough. Subsection (3) provides that where a non-county borough has by the order of the Secretary of State been given a separate magistrates' courts committee the borough justices' jurisdiction as respects matters within their commission shall be exclusive of that of the justices of the county. This is desirable because the possession of a separate magistrates' courts committee means that the borough is to have complete independence of the county in matters relating to magistrates' courts, just as a county borough has. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 36, at end insert the said new worth.—(Lord Chorley.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

I am not at all sure about this Amendment. I thought the whole point of these magistrates' courts committees was to see that the right arrangements were made throughout a county. If a non-county borough which has a population of 75,000 and a commission of the peace is given a separate magistrates' courts committee there can never be any alteration in its petty sessional division between it and the county. That is the first thing that must be remembered. The second is that you will never get a combined clerk for that area and the area of another magistrates' courts committee to take on another function. Thirdly, you may well get put up to the county council—because they are the people who have got to pay, so far as I can make out—two different scales of salaries for the justices' clerk. I think it is rather a retrograde step to give people a vested interest in the magistrates' courts committee from the start, when there is no such interest existing, because these are completely new bodies. I would have liked to see the magistrates' courts committees co-terminus with the county boroughs, so that the scale of salaries, and everything like that, should he uniform right through the county. I must say that the noble Lord who moved the Amendment was not very convincing as to why this addition to the Bill had to be made like this. I should have liked the non-county boroughs, whatever their commission of the peace, to be brought in for these purposes so that the county as a whole formed an entity.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

May I add this to what my noble friend Lord Chorley has said? This Amendment implements a provision of the Roche Committee. It relates only to three boroughs, because there are only three non-county boroughs having a population of more than 75,000—Luton, Cambridge and Poole. Paragraph 103 of the Roche Committee says this: In boroughs with populations of 75.000 and over (which will not come within grouping schemes unless they wish to do so) the justices should be given such of the powers of a magistrates' courts committee as are applicable. Non-county boroughs have their separate magistrates' courts committees, and many of these are far smaller than these three great non-county boroughs. This seemed to us fair, and to carry out what we understood to be the recommendation in Paragraph 103 of the Roche Committee's Report.

LORD SCHUSTER

I think we did recommend that, but with some hesitation, so far as I remember. I feel great hesitation about it now, but I do not see the answer to what is proposed sufficiently to press the matter the other way. I see great difficulties on both sides, as I think does the Lord Chancellor. I do not propose to take any part in the discussion, one way or the other, except to say what I have said.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I would like to ask the Lord Chancellor whether he can enlighten us about this. If it was recommended by the Roche Committee why was it not in the original Bill?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I think it was simply an oversight which we are now trying to correct.

LORD CALVERLEY

Some of us put the point that the anomaly would be that Cambridge, which is an assize town, would not have a magistrates' courts committee which, so far as I understand it, is to ensure that proper accommodation is available for the courts. I hope the House will accept the Lord Chancellor's proposal.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This Amendment is little more than drafting. The subsections involved are replaced by the Amendment to the Third Schedule, at page 41, line 42, which sets out the constitution and establishment of magistrates' courts committees. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 37, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 on page 12.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

I looked upon this Amendment with some suspicion. When I first saw it on the Order Paper, I thought that it might mean some reversal of the decision, but I then found that the matter was satisfactorily dealt with in the Third Schedule, which is obviously a better place.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This Amendment relates to the Amendment about the 75,000 population. If we are to have a number like that there must be some stipulation of how it is to be assessed. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 24, at end insert ("and the population at any time of a borough shall be determined according to the estimates of the registrar-general.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)

Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 14 and 15 agreed to.

Clause 16:

Appointment and conditions of service of justices' clerks

"(12) Subsection (1) of section forty-nine of the Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910 (which prohibits justices' clerks from acting professionally in connection with proceedings at licensing sessions) shall apply in relation to the general annual licensing meeting, transfer sessions and petty sessions held for any district as it applies in relation to those held for the clerk's district, and the words excepting the preparation of notices and forms from the operation of the subsection shall cease to have effect."

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This Amendment meets a suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, and is really for the sake of improving the grammar. He thought the word "single" was better than the word "entire." I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 14, line 23, leave out ("an entire") and insert ("single").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This Amendment is to meet a suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, that before removing a clerk his representations must be heard and considered. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 18, at end insert ("and before approving the removal of any such clerk shall consider any representations made to him by the clerk.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

I am obliged to the Lord Chancellor. That completely meets the point I made.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This Amendment is consequential on the proposal that some non-county boroughs should retain their separate commission of peace. As the Bill was drafted this was not possible. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 15, line 18, at end insert— ("(10) The two last foregoing subsections shall apply to a non-county borough having a separate commission of the peace but not a separate magistrates' courts committee as if it were a petty sessional division of the county of which it forms part.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

This Amendment is also dealt with in the next Amendment in the name of the Lord Chancellor. I understand that this will be accepted. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 34, after ("apply") insert ("to a justices' clerk appointed after the coming into force of this section").—(Lord Llewellin.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

We can accept this Amendment.

5.28 p.m.

LORD CHORLEY moved, in subsection (12) to leave out "cease to have effect" and to insert: not have effect in the application of the subsection to a clerk appointed after the coming into force of this section. The noble Lord said: As my noble and learned friend has pointed out, we need both this Amendment and the one which has just been accepted from the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin. This Amendment is in consequence of an Amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, in order to protect the position of justices' clerks in London who rely for their livelihood upon earnings which they receive for preparing forms and notices for the brewers in respect of licensing applications. There was some discussion as to how far the Roche Committee went in respect of this matter, but it is now found that the Roche Committee were quite definite in their view that justices' clerks ought not to be allowed to do work of this kind. They say in paragraph 85: The prohibition should extend to all classes of work performed for bodies or persons directly interested in licensing matters in the area of his court including conveyancing and the preparation of forms which is expressly excepted from the present disqualification. It is clear, therefore, that the position of the London justices' clerks ought not to be met by abandoning this very important principle.

Moreover, I think your Lordships will agree that it would be quite wrong to make an exception of favour of justices' clerks in London and to leave justices' clerks elsewhere subject to the prohibition. We felt that the best way out of it was to suggest the compromise contained in this Amendment, by which the case will be met by providing that the prohibition on preparing these forms shall be limited in its effect to clerks appointed after the clause comes into force. I hope your Lordships will think this is a reasonable way of dealing with the matter. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 38, leave out ("cease to have effect") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Chorley.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

I am much obliged to the noble Lord. The position, of course, is that to a considerable extent some of these justices' clerks relied upon this source of income, as it was known they would do when their salaries were fixed. In regard to any new appointees to this office, a man taking up the appointment will know that he will no longer get these fees and therefore he will have to settle the salary with the committee accordingly. He will have had this warning and will have to make his own bargain.

LORD SCHUSTER

This is the Amendment to which I was trying to refer when I misled the Committee some minutes ago. I should like to repeat the apologies I then made. This Amendment is quite satisfactory to those concerned.

Clause 16, as amended agreed to.

Clause 17:

Qualification of justices' clerk

(3) A person not having the qualification as barrister or solicitor which is required by subsection (1) of this section may be appointed a justices' clerk if— (a) he has served for not less than ten years in one or more of the following capacities, that is to say, clerk to a stipendiary magistrate, clerk to a metropolitan stipendiary court, clerk at one of the justice rooms of the City of London, assistant to any such clerk as aforesaid and assistant to a justices' clerk; and

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved in subsection (3) to leave out "if—(a) he has served for not less than ten" and to insert: (a) if at the time of appointment he is a solicitor of the Supreme Court and has served for not less than five. The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment gives effect to one moved by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, during the Committee stage and which I then accepted in principle. The proposition on which it was based is that an assistant to a justices' clerk who takes the trouble to become articled, pass examinations and qualify as a solicitor ought not, if he has already a substantial period of service behind him, to have to wait five years before he can be appointed justices' clerk, on account of the requirement of the clause that a solicitor must be of five years' standing for such an appointment. The effect of the Amendment is that if he has five years' service in a clerk's office he can be appointed a clerk as soon as he is qualified. Most assistants who qualify as solicitors have, of course, far more than five years' service to their credit.

Lord Schuster's Amendment at page 16, line 20, deals with the same point but in a different way. He would confine the concession to those assistants who have five years' service before the Act comes into operation. This would mean that no person who joins the clerks' staff after the Act comes into operation, and who in due course qualifies as a solicitor, could benefit by the provision; he would have to wait until he has five years' standing as a solicitor. I think this would be unfair. The point was explained when we discussed Lord Schuster's Amendment on the Committee stage, and I suggest what we are doing here is a fair way of meeting the case of these people who have become solicitors of the Supreme Court and have had five years' previous service to their credit. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 6, leave out from ("clerk") to ("years") in line 7, and insert the said new words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

LORD SCHUSTER

I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount. I shall not move my Amendment.

LORD LLEWELLIN moved, in subsection (3) (a) to omit "to any such." The noble Lord said: When I originally read this clause, I wondered whether the words in the Bill were not rather too wide and whether they did not include such people as the typist or the office boy. What we all have in our minds, of course, is that the words should apply only to the man who sits in court, taking the place from time to time of the clerk. It is for that reason that I have put down this Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 11, leave out from ("assistant") to ("clerk").—(Lord Llewellin.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The effect of this and the consequential Amendment would be to make the subsection read as follows: …clerk at one of the justice rooms of the City of London, assistant clerk as aforesaid and assistant justices' clerk… I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, that all we want is to find a term which covers a responsible assistant and not the office boy. But the terms "assistant clerk" and "assistant justices' clerk" are not known to the law, nor have they any generally accepted meaning. I am afraid it is impossible to confine the category of assistants who are eligible for appointment as justices' clerk under the paragraph, because all the clerk's staff are his assistants. The real safeguard against office boys or other subordinate members of a clerk's staff being appointed justices' clerks is in paragraph (b) of the subsection, which requires both the magistrates' courts committee and the Secretary of State to be satisfied that there are special circumstances making the appointment a proper one. If an office boy were appointed there would obviously be special circumstances making the appointment an improper one. We cannot satisfy the requirement of "special circumstances" unless the persons we have in mind are persons who have taken responsibility on behalf of the justices' clerk—that is to say, who have been taking the court in his absence. But the term "assistant to a justices' clerk" is that used in the existing Statute relating to the appointment of unqualified men. Therefore, although I sympathise with what the noble Lord has in mind, I am afraid that I cannot accept the Amendment.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I have no intention of pressing this matter. I fully understand that paragraph (b) provides a safeguard. Phrases become "terms of art" only after they have become incorporated in some statute. There was no doubt a time when "justices' clerk" was not a term of art. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This next Amendment gives effect to a proposal I made during the discussion of this clause on the previous Committee stage, that we should have some period, to be stated in the Bill, before the bar on the appointment of unqualified men as justices' clerks came into force. Its effect is that to be eligible for appointment as a justices' clerk an unqualified man must have completed ten years' service in one of the capacities specified in paragraph (a) of the subsection, before January 1, 1955. So it gives him substantially five years, and thereafter the door is closed. Until January 1, 1955, anyone who has ten years' such service at the time of his appointment can be appointed. This preserves the eligibility of those who are qualified now by length of service for such appointments, and of those who now have at least five years' service in a justices' clerk's office. No one who has less than this service, or who in future enters for the first time the service of a justices' clerk, will be eligible for appointment as a clerk unless he qualifies as a solicitor. I hope your Lordships will consider this a fair compromise. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 16, line 12, leave out ("and") and Insert— ("or (b) if before the time of appointment or the first day of January, nineteen hundred and fifty-five, whichever is the earlier, he has served for not less than ten years in one or more of the said capacities, and").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

LORD SCHUSTER

I hope I shall be forgiven if I say that it is a little difficult to see how the clause will look when all these Amendments have been made. I gratefully acknowledge the action the noble and learned Viscount has taken, but I should like an opportunity of looking at the clause in its new form before I say that it meets the desires of those who are interested. I have reason to believe that it does, however; certainly, those with whom I have consulted and who have asked me to take action in the matter are satisfied. I am not only satisfied but grateful.

Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 18 agreed to.

Clause 19 [Superannuation of justices' clerks and their stag]:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This Amendment is consequential upon the proposal that certain non-county boroughs should retain their commission of the peace. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 6, leave out the second ("county").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 20 [Existing and former justices' clerks, etc.]:

5.41 p.m.

LORD CHORLEY moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "in any area immediately before the date of the first establishment of a magistrates' court committee to act for that area shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to have been appointed by that committee," and to insert: immediately before the date of the coming into force of section sixteen of this Act shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to have been appointed by the magistrates' courts committee. The noble Lord said: This is rather a complicated Amendment. Clause 20, as is stands, provides: A justices' clerk hording office in any area immediately before the date of the first establishment of a magistrates' courts committee to act for that area shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to have been appointed by that committee… The change which is proposed by this Amendment is to substitute for the date of the first establishment of a magistrates' courts committee, the date of the coming into force of Clause 16. Your Lordships will perhaps remember that Clause 16 is the one under which the justices' clerk will be paid a personal salary. It is proposed that the magistrates' courts committees shall be brought into existence everywhere on a date which will be some months before the beginning of a financial year, and Clause 16 will be brought into force at the beginning of the financial year. In the intervening period, the magistrates' courts committee will have a great deal of work to do and, for example, after consultation with the local authority, will settle the salary of the clerk to the justices. It seems most desirable, therefore, that this provision in Clause 20 should be altered in the way the Amendment suggests, in order that the effective date may be the date when Clause 16 operates and not the date which is laid down in the clause as it at present stands. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 26, leave out from ("office") to the end of line 29 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Chorley.)

LORD CHORLEY

This Amendment is consequential upon the last Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 1, leave out from ("the") to ("or") in line 3, and insert ("said date has been a justices' clerk").—(Lord Chorley.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This is a drafting Amendment. By error, we have referred to a non-existent Act. The London and Middlesex (Improvements, etc.) Act of 1936 has been repealed by the Middlesex County Council Act, 1944. This Amendment is suggested in order to put that right. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 24, leave out from beginning to ("by") in line 25 (The Lord Chancellor.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This Amendment deals with the same point. Section 418 of the Middlesex County Council Act, 1944, made special provision for the application (with certain amendments) of the Local Government Superannuation Act, 1937, to justices' clerks and their staff in Middlesex. The result is that Section 20 of the Act of 1937 (the general provision which brought justices' clerks and their staff within the Act of 1937) does not apply in Middlesex, and the purpose of this Amendment is to substitute in subsection (5) of Clause 20, in relation to the Middlesex clerks, the appropriate references to the Middlesex County Council Act, 1944, for the references in that subsection to the Act of 1937. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 27, at end insert ("and in relation to a person who has been a contributory employee by virtue of section four hundred and eighteen of the Middlesex County Council Act, 1944, subsection (5) of this section shall apply with the substitution of references to that section for references to section twenty of the 1937 Act and of a reference to paragraph (f) of the Fifth Schedule to the said Act of 1944 for the reference to paragraph (g) of Part 111 of the Second Schedule to the 1937 Act").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.

LORD CHORLEY moved, after Clause 20 to insert the following new clause:

Clerk in proceedings for rates in London

".The provisions of section seven of the Vestries Act, 1850, relating to the recovery of rates shall not require or authorise the town clerk of a metropolitan borough to attend on or advise any justices as their clerk."

The noble Lord said: The noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, had an Amendment at the Committee stage to repeal the provisions of the Vestries Act, 1850. He was good enough to withdraw it when I assured him that we accepted the principle and would put down an Amendment to deal with the matter at a later stage. The matter arises in this way. Under the Metropolitan Police Courts Act, 1839, which prohibited justices' clerks in the metropolis from taking fees, there was an exception in favour of fees taken by vestry clerks in rating cases. Under Section 7 of the Vestries Act, 1850, which is repealed in the rest of the country but is still in force in London, a vestry clerk is in fact required to prepare and issue the necessary process for recovery of arrears of rates, to procure the summons to be served, and to attend the justices when they are hearing the case. The effect of these provisions is that in London there is a statutory duty on the vestry clerks, who have in the interval become the town clerks of the metropolitan boroughs, not only to prepare the summons in these rating cases but to act, in effect, as clerk to the justices in the cases where as town clerks they are responsible for the proceedings. I am sure your Lordships will agree that that is an anomalous situation. I understand that for some time past arrangements have been made so that it does not in fact work out in that way. However, it is desirable that the position should be cleared up, and the Amendment which has been tabled has been drafted in order to secure this end. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 20, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Chorley.)

LORD SCHUSTER

I do not know whether I said anything about this matter before, but it is a point about which I have always been most eager. I am grateful to the noble Lord for the action that has been taken. The situation really was, to all intents and purposes, a scandal. This Amendment will remove it.

Clause 21 [Duties of county and county borough Councils]:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 31, leave out ("county borough") and insert ("of each borough having a separate commission of the peace").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This again is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 39, leave out ("county borough") and insert ("of each borough having a separate commission of the peace").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This Amendment is consequential on the proposal that certain non-county boroughs should retain their commissions of the peace—the matter which we discussed to-day. Unless such a borough is allowed to have a separate magistrates' courts committee, under the Amendment we have recently dealt with, it will form part of the county for magistrates' courts committee purposes. The effect of this Amendment will be to enable the expenses of the magistrates' courts committee to be duly apportioned between the county council and the councils of the non-county boroughs which are included in the area of the county magistrates' courts committee. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 42, leave out ("for a joint committee area") and insert ("acting for the area of more than one such council").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

LORD CHORLEY

During the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, asked whether the provisions made in the existing clause include provision for payment of any damages which may be awarded by a court against justices, and the answer is that it does not. This Amendment is therefore designed to make provision whereby costs or damages awarded against the justices can be paid by the local authority. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 21, line 13, at end insert— ("and (d) any costs or damages awarded against any of the county or borough justices in such proceedings as aforesaid in so far as the magistrates' courts committee determine that they ought not to be borne by the justice personally.")—(Lord Chorley.)

LORD MERTHYR

I am obliged to the noble Lord for inserting this Amendment.

Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 22 [Supplementary provisions as to power and duties of councils]:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Pace 22, line 2, at end insert ("or councils").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This Amendment is consequential upon the proposal that certain non-county boroughs should retain their commissions of the peace. The existing subsection is confined to cases where there is more than one county council involved by reason of there being a joint committee area. The new subsection covers also the case where there is more than one council involved by reason of non-county boroughs with separate commissions being included in the area of the magistrates' courts committee of the county. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 22, line 4, leave out subsection (2) and insert— ("(2) Where the expenses of a magistrates courts' committee, or the sums payable to or in respect of a justices' clerk holding more than one clerkship or to or in respect of staff provided for any such clerk, fall to he borne by more than one council, any question as to the manner in which they are to he borne by the councils concerned shall be determined by agreement between those councils").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The next Amendment is consequential, I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 22, line 15, leave out ("hereof") and insert ("of this section, or under paragraph (d) of subsection (2) of the last foregoing section.").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This Amendment is also consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 22, line 18, leave out ("the") and insert ("any")—(The Lord Chancellor.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This, too, is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 22 line 19, leave out ("foregoing subsections") and insert ("last foregoing subsection").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 23 [Application of fines and fees, and payment of expenses of courts]:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 23, line 11, leave out the second ("county").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 23, line 13, leave out ("of justices at") and insert ("as chairman, deputy chairman or member of a court of").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The next two Amendments are consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 24, line 24, leave out ("clerk to county borough") and insert ("justices' clerk, not being a clerk to county").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

Amendment moved— Page 24, line 26, leave out ("those justices when acting as") and insert ("the").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This is a little more than a drafting Amendment. In the City of London there are two separate offices, that of clerk at the justice rooms, who advises the aldermen in their exercise of summary jurisdiction, and that of clerk of special sessions, who acts as clerk to the licensing justices. These offices may be combined in one person, arid it is understood that they are so combined at present. These duties of these offices are, elsewhere than in the City, all duties of the justices' clerk. The Bill provides on the one hand that all fees taken by a justices' clerk come into the pool and on the other, that the justices' clerk's salary is paid out of the pool plus the Treasury grant. This applies, as the Bill is drafted, to the clerk at the justice rooms of the City, and the Amendment makes it apply also to the clerk of special sessions. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 25, line 4, after ("London") insert ("a clerk of special sessions").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This is consequential. I beg to move:

Amendment moved— Page 25, line 8, leave out ("county borough") and insert ("any borough having a separate commission of the peace").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 24 [Appointments in non-county boroughs and urban districts]:

LORD MERTHYR

had given notice of several Amendments to Clause 24. The noble Lord said: I have a number of Amendments to this clause, but I observe that the noble and learned Viscount has put down a new clause to take the place of the existing Clause 24. I should like to acknowledge freely that some of the grievances which I formerly entertained with regard to stipendiaries are met by this new clause and by following Amendments, and it will not be necessary for me to move all my Amendments. I have one big grievance still to make, however, and what I want to say can be condensed under two headings. I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I do not move these present Amendments to Clause 24 but say what I want to say on the Lord Chancellor's Amendment with regard to the new clause. On that understanding I will not move my Amendments to Clause 24.

5.53 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, to leave out Clause 24 and insert the following new clause:

Appointments onside London

" —(1) It shall be lawful for His Majesty to appoint a barrister of not less than seven years standing or a solicitor of the Supreme Court of the like standing to be a stipendiary magistrate for any of the following areas—

1. (a) any borough having a separate commission of the peace;
2. (b) the whole or part of any county exclusive of any such borough as aforesaid:
3. (c) a district (in this section referred to as a "joint district") comprising two or more areas for which separate appointments might be made under the foregoing paragraphs.

(2) A stipendiary magistrate appointed under this section shall hold office during His Majesty's pleasure and shall by virtue of his office be a justice of the peace for any county, and for any borough having a separate commission of the peace, which includes his area or any part of it.

(3) Any appointment of a stipendiary magistrate under this section shill be of a person recommended to His Majesty by the Lord Chancellor.

(4) No appointment (whether original or on a vacancy) of a stipendiary magistrate under this section

1. (a) shall be made for a borough having a separate commission of the peace except on a petition presented to the Secretary of State by the borough council; or
2. (b) shall be made for the whole or part of a county exclusive of any such borough except on a petition so presented by the county council; or
3. (c) shall be made for a joint district except on a joint petition so presented by the borough and county councils who might 275 present separate petitions under the foregoing paragraphs for the several parts of the joint district.

(5) The salary of a stipendiary magistrate appointed under this section shall be paid by the council or councils on whose petition he was appointed and, where he was appointed on a joint petition, each of the councils shall be liable to him for the whole salary but it shall be borne by them in the shares from time to time agreed and the joint petition shall specify the shares agreed at the time of its presentation.

(6) Before presenting a petition under this section a council shall consult the magistrates' courts committee acting for their area, and the Secretary of state before submitting the petition to His Majesty shall take into account any representations made to him by the committee.

(7) Where a stipendiary magistrate is appointed under this section on a petition presented by a county council (whether alone or jointly with other councils), the Secretary of State shall (where necessary) make an order constituting the area for which he is appointed, or that part in which the county justices have jurisdiction, a petty sessional division or divisions of the county and making consequential provisions as to the remainder of the county, and subsections (4), (6) and (7) of section fifteen of this Act shall apply as if the order were an order under that section.

(8) A stipendiary magistrate appointed under this section for an area consisting of or including the whole or part of a county shall not act as a member of any court of quarter sessions for the county, nor act for any petty sessional division of the county other than the division or divisions in his area.

(9) The grant of a commission of the peace to a borough forming part of an area for which a stipendiary magistrate has been appointed under this section shall not affect the appointment of the magistrate or the liability for his salary of the council of the county which includes that borough.

(10) More than one magistrate may be appointed under this section for the same area.

(11) The foregoing provisions of this section shall not apply to the City of London or the county of London.

(12) Section one hundred and sixty-one of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, shall cease to have effect and this section shall apply to any magistrate appointed on a petition under that section who is in office at the coming into force of this section as if the petition had been a petition under this section."

The noble and learned Viscount said: As I told your Lordships on the original Committee stage, it became obvious that Clause 24—it was then Clause 22—would have to be taken back for consideration because of the changes which were proposed to be made in the Bill. I have drafted a new clause. I have drafted it, quite frankly, with a view to meeting the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, so far as I can. The new clause provides that there shall be power to appoint a stipendiary for an area in a county, whether it is an urban district or not. Subsection (1) of the new clause gives power for an appointment to be made for any borough having a separate commission of the peace, for the whole or a part of any county exclusive of such borough, or for a joint area consisting of two or more of the above-mentioned areas. By subsection (4) of the clause the appointment is to be made on petition of the borough council or county council for the several parts of the joint area.

Subsection (3) is intended to meet Lord Merthyr's proposal that the appointment of a stipendiary should be on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor, and with the Amendment which I am going to move to Clause 26 the Lord Chancellor will no doubt be the Minister responsible for recommending appointments of stipendiaries throughout the country, including the metropolitan magistrates. I confess that I have been most reluctant to take on this duty, but in view of the pressure placed on me by the Committee I thought I ought to do so. But I do so only on this understanding. I want to be perfectly frank with the Committee. I am not going to be responsible for the administration of these courts. I cannot do that; that will remain with the Home Office, as is the case to-day. But as to the appointment of the man who is to occupy this position, that will be my responsibility in the future, and no longer that of the Home Secretary. All questions of pensions and salaries and so on, and the areas of the court and the sittings of the magistrates, will be dealt with by the Home Secretary and not by me.

Lord Llewellin suggested that the magistrates' courts committee should be consulted about any proposal to appoint a stipendiary in their area. I think that is right, and accordingly I make provision for that in subsection (6) of the new clause. I think the rest of the clause requires no further comment from me; it is substantially in accordance with the old Clause 22. Opportunity has been taken in subsection (12), however, to repeal Section 161 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, which provides for the appointment of stipendiaries in boroughs, since this is now superseded by the provisions of this clause. The question of fixing the salary of the stipendiary by the central Government, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, is dealt with separately in the new clause on salaries that we inserted after Clause 26. I have gone as far as I can to meet the Committee. I have gone perhaps further than I ought, and I hope that that will be credited to me for righteousness and that the Committee will accordingly accept this clause. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 24 and insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD

I am very glad to hear what the Lord Chancellor has just said. I was one of the members of the House who pressed him to take over these judicial appointments. I am sure that he is taking the right course. I sympathise with him in having another duty put upon his shoulders but, as I said in our last debate, I do not think that it will be a very onerous additional duty, for my remembrance in connection with this question when I was Home Secretary was that the Home Secretary always consulted the Lord chancellor in cases of this kind. I hope, therefore, that while he will now become definitely responsible for these appointments, the actual work put upon his shoulders will not be substantially increased. I am glad that he has extended this proposal to the metropolitan stipendiary magistrates, and I am also glad that in a later clause he deals with the question of salaries and pensions. I hope the Committee will agree with the new clause and will regard it as a definite improvement to the Bill.

LORD MERTHYR

I think that the decision of the Lord Chancellor to take over the appointment of stipendiaries will be widely welcomed throughout the country, and I wish to acknowledge, as I said before, that he has gone a long way to meet some of the points which have been made on this part of the Bill. As I said, however, I am afraid I have still one very big grievance—I refer to subsection (5) on page 10 of the Marshalled List. The first two lines of that subsection say this: The salary of a stipendiary magistrate appointed under this section shall be paid by the council.… The point I want to make is that it is wrong that the salaries of stipendiaries in the country should continue to be paid by the local authorities. It becomes even more wrong, in my humble opinion, when you consider that the salaries of the London police magistrates are paid by the Treasury. The noble and learned Viscount said, the last time we were on this Bill: They"— that is, London magistrates— are stipendiaries in everything except the technical sense. Why, then, does this Bill differentiate on several points between the London police magistrates and the other stipendiaries in the country?

I am sorry to detain the Committee over this, but I cannot understand it, and I cannot leave this Bill without making this point. I think it is clearly unfair that the stipendiaries in the country should be a burden on the local ratepayers, and on nobody else, whereas the London magistrates who, after all, have not been demanded by the local authorities in London, should be paid gratuitously out of the Treasury. I know the reason why it happened—namely, because of certain "rackets" that went on in London some 200 years ago or thereabouts. But that is no possible justification for the continuance of this anomaly. As this anomaly means a considerable amount in cash, I do not think it can be continued because it is traditional. With the exception of the fact that it pays them pensions, this Bill puts stipendiaries in a worse position than they were before.

If the Committee will look at Clause 23 (2) they will see that the Treasury are to pay nearly all the expenses of the local authority in the administration of justice so far as petty sessions are concerned. The Treasury are to pay the expenses under Parts III and IV of this Bill, but not under Part V. That, I think, is clearly unfair. It becomes even more unfair when I point out that, whereas at present the expense of a stipendiary in the country is largely met by the amount of fines collected in the court and devoted to the local authority in recompense, after this Bill is passed those fines will be taken away and paid to the central authority in London. Therefore, the position of a local authority which employs a stipendiary will be much worse than it was before, with the undesirable consequence that the stipendiary will be more dependent upon the will and the whim of the local authority.

May I quote very shortly from paragraph 233 of the Report of the Royal Commission? I think I have the Royal Commission with me on this point. They say in line 5: The Departmental Committee on Justices' Clerks…recommended a new system which would include a grant from central funds to meet certain deficits. If that system is adopted we think that the salaries of stipendiaries should be considered as an expense that would be brought into account in claims for grants.

LORD LLEWELLIN

There is one more sentence.

LORD MERTHYR

I will gladly read it. The Report goes on to say: Subject to this, we think that local funds should continue to pay the salaries. That has been adopted under this Bill, but the recommendation of the Royal Commission that the payment of stipendiaries' salaries should be included has not been adopted, and I think that is extremely unfair. The only possible argument I can think of for paying the London magistrates, but not the country magistrates, out of the Treasury is that London is such a cosmopolitan place, that a lot of foreigners live in it, and for some reason or another there is likely to be more crime. But I do not accept that for a moment. What about such big ports as Liverpool and Cardiff?

I would hazard a guess that there is a greater proportion of foreigners in Liverpool and in Cardiff than in London. I am not prepared to prove it, but I am pretty sure that that is so. So there are two large cities in which the cost of the stipendiaries is paid entirely out of the local rates with no grant from the Treasury, and the position will be made worse and more unfair after this Bill is passed. I do not wish to detain the Committee longer on this point but I cannot see any possible justification for this extraordinary differentiation between London and the country. Coming, as I do, from the country, I would like to complain in the strongest possible way.

LORD CALVERLEY

Surely the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, will recall that the history of this matter extends over a long period. I do not know exactly how long, but I think the noble Lord, himself, made some mention of two hundred years. These metropolitan magistrates are appointed at the present time by the Home Office; I suppose that in future they will be appointed by the Lord Chancellor. And they are appointed for, shall we say, St. Pancras, or anywhere else, whether the local council want them or not. I myself have had occasion to present a petition to His Majesty's Government to appoint a provincial stipendiary. We have acted on the old adage "Pay for your own pots," or, as we also say, "If you break a window you must pay for it yourself." If our petition is granted then the local council has no right to complain. There has been a measure of complaint, but not so much by the local councils. I speak with knowledge of a fairly good number of these stipendiaries—there are only about fifteen of them in the provinces. The only sense of grievance has been because the Lord Chancellor makes magistrates "clock on," so to speak, to show that they have been in attendance. But, as we were told by the Home Secretary, once our petition has been granted we have nothing to do further with regard to a stipendiary except to pay his salary. That is all. If we have acted with our eyes open, I do not see that we have any right to complain about paying stipendiaries salaries so long as those salaries are adequate.

With regard to what has been said once or twice by the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, to the effect that the local council sometimes will not raise the stipendiary's salary because he has given decisions against them, I can only say that after nearly twenty years' experience I have never come across the slightest suspicion of anything of the sort.

LORD MERTHYR

If the noble Lord will forgive my interruptina him for a moment I should like to ask him to quote the passage from Hansard in which I am reported as saying that. I have certainly no recollection of saying anything of the kind.

LORD CALVERLEY

In that case I withdraw it. It must have been said by the noble Lord in a conversation off the record which I have no right to quote.

I unreservedly withdraw—but I still think he said it. As I was saying, stipendiaries are being placed in an anomalous position in regard to the matter of salaries and pensions. There is a strong case for giving these stipendiary magistrates adequate pensions. We had to keep a man on at the age of eighty-seven because there was no provision for a pension for him. We "held his hands" as I think the hands of Joshua were held.

LORD SCHUSTER

It was Moses, not Joshua.

LORD CALVERLEY

Then we induced the council to make him an ex gratia grant. I believe it is most important that we should see that justice is done to stipendiaries. We should see to it that a stipendiary is put in a position to retire like anyone else, and that he has the opportunity of being careful. For these reasons I support the new clause.

LORD LLEWELLIN

had given notice of an Amendment to insert, after Clause 24, a new clause providing for the transfer to the Lord Chancellor of certain functions in relation to stipendiary magistrates. The noble Lord said: This point is completely covered by the earlier Amendment which has been passed and the one which I presume the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, is going to move next. I am very much obliged to him. I only hope that by inducing him to take on this burden we have not added that "last straw" about which he spoke on a former occasion. I am much obliged to him and I shall not move my Amendment.

Clause 25 agreed to.

Clause 26 [Qualification for appointments under previous Acts.]

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I now move this Amendment. I am grateful for what your Lordships have said. I have discussed the subject of this Amendment recently, and without further words I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 26, line 45, at end insert— ("(4) Any appointment of a stipendiary magistrate under any Act passed before this Act shall be of a person recommended to His Majesty by the Lord Chancellor.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)

LORD CALVERLEY

I have been considering moving an Amendment, if in order, that we insert a clause setting up a Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Lord Chancellors.

Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.

6.16 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 26 to insert the following new clause:

Salary

".—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, a stipendiary magistrate other than a metropolitan stipendiary magistrate shall be paid a salary of such amount as the Secretary of State may front time to time direct after consultation with the authority or authorities liable to pay the salary.

(2) The amount of the salary shall not be greater than that of the salary for the time being payable to a metropolitan stipendiary magistrate other than the chief magistrate.

(3) The amount of the salary shall not at any time be reduced without the consent of the stipendiary magistrate.

(4) A stipendiary magistrate in office at the coming into force of this section shall, until the Secretary of State otherwise directs under subsection (1) of this section, continue to receive the salary to which he is then entitled."

The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment is designed to meet a point which was raised, I believe, by the Royal Commission, that there should be some oflicer—I think they suggested the Lord Chancellor—who should concern himself about the amount of a stipendiary magistrate's salary. The new clause follows, I think, the recommendation of the Royal Commission (paragraph 236 of their Report) except that it leaves the task to the Secretary of State and not to the Lord Chancellor. The Commission's recommendation was that it should be given to the Lord Chancellor. That is the position. The Commission further recommended that the stipendiary's salary should in no case exceed that paid to county court judges or metropolitan magistrates. On the basis that administrative matters, as I said before, are to remain the responsibility of the Secretary of State, the authority to fix the salary is given by the new clause to him. I am prepared to accept the burden of appointment. Before directing the amount of the salary which a stipendiary is to be paid, the Secretary of State is required to consult with the authority or authori- ties liable to pay the salary. Metropolitan magistrates are excluded from the clause because—and I agree that this is an historical anomaly—their salaries are a charge on the national fund. Subsection (2) limits the maximum amount of the salary to that which is for the time being payable to a metropolitan magistrate other than the chief magistrate—which is at the present time £2,000 a year. Subsection (3) gives effect to another Amendment moved by Lord Merthyr to the effect that a stipendiary magistrate's salary should not at any time be reduced without his consent. The new clause will apply to all stipendiary magistrates appointed outside London including those appointed under the provisions of the new Clause 24. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 26, insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

Clause 27:

Compulsory retirement and superannuation

27.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a stipendiary magistrate—

1. (a) shall vacate his office at the end of the completed year of service in the course of which he attains the age of seventy-two; but
2. (b) shall, from the date on which he ceases to serve as a stipendiary magistrate, be entitled to be paid an annual sum by way of pension by the authority paying his salary in the office or last office in which he so served.

(10) Where subsection (1) of this section applies to a stipendiary magistrate by virtue of a notice given under the last foregoing subsection, half only of his service before the coming into force of this section shall be taken into account for the purpose of calculating the amount of any pension under this section, and if he has attained the age of seventy-two before giving the notice the said subsection (1) shall apply to him with the substitution of a reference to the year of service in the course of which he gives the notice for the reference to that in the course of which he attains the said age.

LORD MERTHYR had given notice of an Amendment to subsection (1) (b), to leave out all words after "pension" and to insert: charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom or the growing produce thereof. The noble Lord said: This is a matter concerning the pensions of the stipendiaries. I was going to make another point here, for I had a considerable grievance, but I am glad to say that partial relief is afforded by the first parts of the Lord Chancellor's Amendment which appears at the top of page 13 of the Marshalled List. May I put the position shortly? Under the Bill, as framed, stipendiary magistrates were to have only half their years of service counted for pension, whereas the London magistrates have had the whole of their service counted since 1929. I feel that it is most unfair to make that distinction between country and London magistrates. I still think that the Bill is wrong in this respect, because it perpetuates that distinction. But I tried to make that point on the last clause, and I do not want to make it all over again. I acknowledge that it is to a considerable, though not to an entirely satisfactory, extent met by the Amendment the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor is about to move. As he will no doubt explain, if it is passed as I hope it will be, the local authorities will have the option of putting the matter right.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I do not want the noble Lord to be misled. I am proposing to ask leave to withdraw my Amendments at page 27, line 10 and line 15. It is not those on which the noble Lord is relying.

LORD MERTHYR

The one on which I am relying is at page 28, line 37. The first five lines of that Amendment go some way to meet my point. I cannot say I am satisfied, but it goes a long way and I do not want to labour the point any further. I therefore shall not move my Amendment.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

had given notice of his intention to move, in subsection (2), line 10, to leave out "Secretary of State" (where that term first occurs) and to insert "Lord Chancellor." The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment and the next I propose not to move and it is right that I should explain why. I do not want to do any administration. It is not easy to draw a line but I may fairly say that this is a matter of administration. I am responsible for appointing a barrister or solicitor as a stipendiary, but, when he comes to retire, the question of whether he should have his period of office extended depends on such circumstances as whether he is doing his work satisfactorily or whether Old age is beginning to affect his faculties. These are matters about which the Home Secretary is likely to have more information, or is more easily able to obtain information, than I am. If the Amendments were made it would he possible for the Lord Chancellor to be advised on these matters by the Home Secretary, but on the basis that the Lord Chancellor is not proposing to take over any work of an administrative character, I would prefer to leave the subsection as it is. I should prefer, therefore, not to move this Amendment and that immediately following, which deals with the same point.

The next Amendment is consequential upon the Amendment made in subsection (4) of this clause, on Lord Raglan's Amendment to insert "as well in any other office as in that office."

Amendment moved— Page 27, line 20, after ("magistrate") insert ("whether in that or any other office")—(The Lord Chancellor.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to add to subsection (10): Provided that this subsection so far as it relates to the extent to which any service is to be taken into account shall have effect subject to any determination of the authority liable for the pension that the whole of the service or a part of it larger than a half shall be taken into account.

(11) Where a stipendiary magistrate has held office in a joint district within the meaning of section twenty-four of this Act, then

1. (a) each of the authorities paying his salary in that office shall be liable for any pension payable to him on his retirement therefrom or for any contributions in respect of his service therein to a pension payable to him on his retirement from any other office as a stipendiary magistrates; and
2. (b) where they are liable for his pension,—
1. (i) they shall together determine anything which under this section is a matter for the decision of the authority so liable;
2. (ii) they, or the one paying the pension, shall be entitled to contributions thereto under subsection (6) of this section in respect of his service in any previous office; and
3. (c) they shall share among themselves the net liability for the pension (after allowing 286 for any contributions received under the said subsection (6)), or the liability for contributions payable under that subsection, as the case may be, in such manner as they may agree or as in default of agreement may be determined by the Secretary of State."

The noble and learned Viscount said: The first part of this Amendment is intended to meet the point made by one of the Lord Merthyr's Amendments, which proposed that all stipendiaries who elected to come within the superannuation provisions of the clause should be entitled to count the whole of their past service. As the clause stands, they can count only half their past service. I cannot agree to make the provision which the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, suggests—for this reason. When a new superannuation scheme is started, those persons already in office who have undertaken office without any superannuation rights should riot be allowed the same rights as persons who take office after the scheme comes into force. So far as I know, this principle has been observed in all superannuation schemes, although there are many precedents for allowing such persons to count back service at half-rate. Although the amount involved is comparatively small, I am told that the repercussions to which the counting of the whole service might give rise would be most dangerous and might involve a very large sum of money.

Of course, it is a variant or extension of the old argument: "I agreed with you for a penny a day." If a stipendiary is engaged and no provision is made about pension, and he has entered into the service on these terms, arid later, a pension scheme comes to be provided, surely it is not right that he should be treated on exactly the same basis as those who enter into the service with a pension scheme. I submit that we are not treating these people unjustly. Having no rights in the matter at all, their past service is reckoned by only a half. Frankly, I would rather that we could do it for the whole service, but in view of the fact that I am sure that would have serious repercussions, I cannot recommend such a course to your Lordships. I think half is a fair compromise and I ask your Lordships to accept it.

Amendment moved— Page 28, line 37, at end insert the said new words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

I am sorry the Government could not see their way to go the whole way. These repercussions do not always take place, and in the meantime we have a number of stipendiaries who are staying on to an age at which some of them ought to have retired. The Bill restrains an ordinary justice from sitting after seventy-five years of age. I do not know the age of the oldest stipendiary at the present moment, but I think he is ninety or thereabouts, and the reason why he stays is largely because there is not an adequate pension. It is not a good thing for justice that he should go on so much longer than the ordinary voluntary justice can go under the terms of this Bill. I would suggest to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor that he has another "go" at the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see whether this cannot be made to place stipendiaries in the provinces in the same position as the Metropolitan stipendiaries.

LORD MERTHYR

I should like to support what the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, has just said. I am informed that, at most, the cost of making all the years count will be £2,000 a year, and probably less than that, because the burden will not all fall at the same time. If it were confined to this, it would cost the country £2,000 a year, which I submit is not much. I think the provision as it stands will have the opposite effect to that intended. Surely, the purpose of introducing this pension scheme is to enable very old stipendiaries to retire. In the case of those who have held office for a very long time it may be effective in so doing, because they have done so many years that even if only half count they will get the maximum pension.

I do not want to mention names, but there is one very elderly stipendiary who has been in office since 1910. He will be enabled to get the maximum in any event, whatever happens under this Bill. But there is another stipendiary to which that does not apply. He is nearly as old, but by reason of the fact that his service is very much less it will make a considerable financial difference to him—something over £300 a year. His income will fall very substantially by reason of the passing of this Bill. After all, although it is true that he is offered a pension under the Bill and he does not get it now, this Bill makes it almost imperative for him to retire, whereas if it were not passed he might go on for some years more. I would like to reinforce what Lord Llewellin has said and ask the Lord Chancellor to reconsider this matter, while acknowledging that something has been done by this Amendment in throwing the option on to the local authorities. I have one further point. I listened carefully to what the Lord Chancellor said, but surely provision was made in the case of the London magistrates. I think that in 1915 an Act was passed giving them pensions, and half the years counted. But in the year 1929 that was amended, and since that year the whole of their service has counted, although it is non-contributory. I still ask this question: If it can be done for London, why cannot it be done for the country?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am afraid that I cannot answer the historical researches the noble Lord has made. Frankly, I do not know what was done about the metropolitan police magistrates. However, I am satisfied that it cannot be done here—at least, I cannot get the Treasury to do it. I feel there is some consolation in the fact, as your Lordships will observe, that if the local authority choose they may pay more than this. They may, if they like, say that all service shall count, at full value, and not at half value. The half is really the minimum. If the local authority choose to say that the whole shall count, so it will be. I assure your Lordships that I can do no more on this matter. I am told that the repercussions will be serious, and we are not in a position to-day to stand serious repercussions in these matters.

LORD SCHUSTER

I know it is no use pressing this against what the Lord Chancellor has said. I am more interested in the repercussions than in the actual proposal itself. I think there are many cases in which unestablished people on becoming established are not allowed to count their back service. To my mind, that is most unfair. This is only one instance of many—they are all unjust—and I think in this particular case it would be well if it were put right.

LORD CHORLEY

This Amendment, and the succeeding one at page 29, line 3, are drafting Amendments. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 28, line 42, leave out from ("service") to ("contributions") in line 46 and insert ("as a stipendiary magistrate shall be taken into account as if it were service as a metropolitan stipendiary magistrate and").—(Lord Chorley.)

Amendment moved—

Page 29, line 3, at end insert— ("Provided that half only of any service before the coming into force of this section shall be taken into account by virtue of this subsection and, in the case of a metropolitan stipendiary magistrate appointed before the coming into force thereof, no contributions shall be payable in respect of that service.")—(Lord Chorley.)

Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 28 [Sittings of stipendiary magistrates]:

LORD CHORLEY

The next Amendment is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 29, line 9, leave out ("or occasional").—(Lord Chorley.)

LORD CHORLEY

This also is a drafting Amendment. I might say, by way of explanation, that the clause as it stands allows for directions to be given only on the appointment of the magistrate. It may be desirable to give similar directions subsequently. The Amendment, therefore, provides for such directions to be given from time to time. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 29, line 11, leave out from ("State") to end of line 12 and insert—("from time to time: Provided that the number of days in a week on which a stipendiary magistrate may be required to attend shall not, without the consent of the magistrate, be increased beyond that determined by the directions given on his appointment.")—(Lord Chorley.)

Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 29 to 31 agreed to.

6.36 p.m.

LORD CHORLEY

This, too, is substantially a drafting Amendment. It is necessitated by the new arrangements which have been brought into effect. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 31, insert the following new clause:

Place for holding county quarter sessions

(".Courts of quarter sessions for a county may be held in any borough forming part of, surrounded by or adjoining the county, notwithstanding that the borough is not part of the area for which the courts are held.")—(Lord Chorley.)

LORD ROCHE

I simply do not understand this Amendment at present and I should like a little more explanation or further consideration of it. As I understand it, courts of quarter sessions for a county may now be held in any borough forming part of the county. In Dorchester they sit at the borough of Dorchester. In Oxford we have sat for years in what is the City of Oxford—but it is still the same position. I do not understand why this is necessary.

LORD CHORLEY

I will give your Lordships the whole of the material with which I have been provided on the subject. The new clause replaces paragraph 17 of the Second Schedule, which is being deleted. That paragraph was confined to provision about county quarter sessions being held in county boroughs. The new clause provides also for county quarter sessions being held in non-county boroughs. For example, to take the case of Cambridge, which will retain its commission of the peace under the Bill, if it is allowed to have a separate magistrates' courts committee, the new subsection (3) which is being added to Clause 13 (which has already been dealt with) provides that the jurisdiction of the Cambridge borough justices shall then be exclusive of that of the justices of the county. This would mean, but for the provision of this new clause, that the Cambridge Quarter Sessions could not be held in the borough of Cambridge, as they have always been held in the past. I hope that explanation will satisfy the noble Lord.

LORD SCHUSTER

It does not satisfy me in the least, but I suppose I have to be satisfied with it, having regard to the time of the evening.

LORD ROCHE

I would ask only that it be looked at again before the Report stage. I do not believe it is necessary. It is really a formal point, but I should like the noble Lord to undertake that it will be reconsidered.

LORD CHORLEY

If the noble Lords feel it is unnecessary, we would be the last people who would desire to put it in. I will undertake to have it looked into.

LORD LLEWELLIN

Where is the provision that a court of quarter sessions must sit only within the area of its own borough? If there is such a provision it may be necessary, but I have never heard of one.

Clauses 32 to 35 agreed to.

Clause 36 [Expenses and payments into Exchequer]:

LORD CHORLEY

The two Amendments to Clause 36 are drafting Amendments. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 33, line 9, leave out ("police") and insert ("stipendiary").—(Lord Chorley.)

Amendment moved— Page 33, line 14, leave out ("police") and insert ("stipendiary").—(Lord Chorley.)

Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.

6.40 p.m.

Clause 37 [Interpretation]:

LORD CHORLEY

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 33, line 23, at end insert ("'court of quarter sessions' includes any committee by which the powers and duties of such a court are exercisable by virtue of any Act;").—(Lord Chorley.)

LORD CHORLEY

This next Amendment, although a new provision, is substantially drafting. Clause 8 of the Bill makes new provision about the areas for which commissions of the peace will exist in future, and involves the abolition of the commission of the peace of many non-county boroughs. It may be some time after the passing of the Act before this clause can be brought into force, because an Order in Council will be necessary making various transitional provisions. It may well be that it will be found desirable to bring Clause 17, relating to the qualifications of justices' clerks, into force at some date before Clause 8 comes into force. Clause 37, as it stands, defines a justices' clerk as a clerk to the justices for a petty sessions area. None of the clerks mentioned in this Amendment come within this definition—for example, justices of the Isle of Ely and for the Soke of Peterborough are justices for liberties and not for counties, and a liberty is not a petty sessions area. In those circumstances, it is necessary to have this Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 33, line 25, at end insert ("and in relation to a time before the coming into force of section eight of this Act includes a clerk to any of the justices for a riding or division of a county, for the Isle of Ely or for the Soke of Peterborough;").—(Lord Chorley.)

LORD CHORLEY

The next three Amendments are consequential upon the proposal that certain of the non-county boroughs shall retain their commissions of the peace, which we were discussing earlier this afternoon. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 33, line 26, leave out ("county borough") and insert ("a borough having a separate commission of the peace").—(Lord Chorley.)

Amendment moved— Page 33, line 31, after ("county") insert ("(other than a borough having a separate commission of the peace)").—(Lord Chorley.)

Amendment moved— Page 33, line 43, leave out ("county borough") and insert ("borough having a separate commission of the peace").—(Lord Chorley.)

Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 38:

Commencement

(4) Provision shall be made by Order in Council under this section with respect to the remuneration to be paid to justices' clerks in office before the establishment of magistrates' courts committees for the period before their salaries under section sixteen of this Act are determined in accordance with section twenty-two thereof, and the provision so made may include in particular (but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing subsections) provision for securing that, pending the determination of a justices' clerk's salary as aforesaid, subsections (2) to (6) of section sixteen and subsection (8) of section eighteen of this Act shall apply to him only to such extent and subject to such modifications as may be determined by or in accordance with the Order.

LORD CHORLEY

This next Amendment is largely consequential on the Amendment to Clause 20, and reference has already been made to the provisions of this Amendment. It is intended that as soon as they are established magistrates' courts committees should get to work to determine the clerk's personal salary and other matters of a similar nature, their determination to take effect when Clause 16, which requires that a personal salary shall be paid, as opposed to the old method of remunerating the clerk, is brought into force at the beginning of a financial year. This arrangement will greatly help towards a smooth transition from the present system of inclusive salaries to the new system of personal salaries, and also to the transference to the magistrates' courts committees of responsibility in matters of salaries, expenses and other things of that kind. If all the negotiations with the local authorities were to be undertaken only after the requirement of payment of a personal salary to the clerk had come into force, there would be great delay before the clerk's salary was finally agreed and determined. This matter is covered by the Amendment before your Lordships and I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 34, line 33, leave out from ("section") to ("subsections") in line 40, and insert ("for securing that so far as practicable questions as to the salaries under section sixteen of this Act of justices' clerks holding office immediately before the date when that section comes into force, and other questions arising under that section on its coming into force, shall be determined before it comes into force and, so far as it is not practicable for any such clerk's salary to be determined as aforesaid, for securing either that the subsequent determination thereof shall have effect from the coming into force of section sixteen of this Act or that pending the determination thereof").—(Lord Chorley.)

LORD SCHUSTER

Is this Amendment to determine the remuneration of the clerk? At an earlier stage of the proceedings an Amendment was moved to the effect that when the new salary was fixed, account should be taken of the fact that he was compelled to accept the duty of collecting officer or that he had lost the collecting officer fees. The Government found themselves unable to accept that Amendment, for reasons which I readily understand. If we are to make provision of this kind with regard to remuneration, something ought to have been said with regard to one of those two cases—that he is either losing the collecting officer fees or that he is having the duties placed upon him. Perhaps the noble Lord will look into that point between now and Report.

LORD CHORLEY

I will certainly have that done. The magistrates' courts committees will have to take all these matters into account. That is raised in the Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin. I suggest that it is not possible to meet all these points.

LORD SCHUSTER

I would he glad if the noble Lord would look at it before Report. He will understand how anxious we are that these people should not suffer an injustice in the matter.

LORD LLEWELLIN moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "and subsection (8) of section eighteen." The noble Lord said: This and the next Amendment go together, and deal with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Schuster. It is quite true that we talked about it at the previous Committee stage. We now come to a part of the Bill which deals with the transitional period, and the part of this clause which I am seeking to delete reads as follows: …subsections (2) to (6) of section sixteen and subsection (8) of section eighteen of this Act shall apply to him only to such extent and subject to such modifications as may be determined by or in accordance with the Order. On the last occasion the noble and learned Viscount said that what he wanted to perpetuate was the payment of these people in part by the fees they collected, and with that we agree. If I delete that part and put in my words, the effect will be to put whoever is concerned more quickly on the proper salary basis than if the Order provided that he should continue getting part of his salary by way of the fees he collected. That is the purport of my Amendment. We all want to see these clerks dealt with fairly. We want to see the system by which part of their salary is obtained from the fees they collect abolished, and these men put on a proper salary. Moreover, we want that change to take place as quickly as possible. Because my Amendment seeks to do those three things, I commend it to the Committee. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 34, line 41, leave out from ("sixteen") to end of line.—(Lord Llewellin.)

LORD CHORLEY

I have already agreed to have this matter looked into again in the light of the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Schuster. But I should say that under Clause 18, the collecting officer's duties are duties of the clerk by virtue of his office; and, as I suggested in my earlier reply, the magistrates' courts committees are bound to take that into account when dealing with the question of the personal salary of the clerk. As at present advised, I am not satisfied that there is any need for the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin. Under this Amendment an Order in Council would be required either to make these modifications or else to provide for the increase of the clerk's remuneration, so as to compensate him for any loss sustained by him and to remunerate him for the additional duties which he undertakes as collecting officer.

This is not a real alternative, because the whole purpose of the provision about modifying the extent of the modification of the application to a particular clerk of Clause 18 (8) is to secure that, pending determination of his personal salary, any necessary adjustment of the salary he is receiving is made in consequence of the duties of collecting officer becoming part of the duties of his office. Lord Llewellin's Amendment seeks to write into the power to deal with this matter by Order in Council provisions which are more appropriate to the terms of the Order in Council itself. The words in the clause are quite wide enough to enable what the noble Lord wishes to be done. Moreover, his Amendment seems to imply that if the clerk's remuneration has to be adjusted by reason of separate payment for collecting officer's duties, whether by percentage on monies collected or otherwise, being abandoned, he must have his salary raised by the amount of the commission or other payment which he is losing. This was the proposal in the Amendment which the noble Marquess, Lord Exeter, moved on the Committee stage and which was firmly rejected by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. I regret I cannot accept this Amendment.

LORD ROCHE

I regret the noble Lord's reply, which seemed to me unsympathetic. There is a real point here, and there is a danger that the Act may be misunderstood. I would implore the noble Lord, if he wishes this Bill to go through Report stage quickly and easily, to put right what some of us believe should be put right. The noble Lord says that it is implied in the Bill that these collecting officers' payments should be taken into account. It may be implied if you dig deeply, but it is not at all clear to my mind, and I can imagine some magistrates' courts saying, "The collecting officer's duties are taken away from him, but he is still the magistrates' clerk and is the collecting officer if we want him to be. There is nothing about his having to be paid, and therefore, we shall get him for nothing." I am sure this can be made quite plain, and the passage of the Bill be made very much easier, if the noble Lord will look into the point and see whether he cannot get the matter more sympathetically regarded than is suggested by the reply he has just given.

LORD CHORLEY

I have already agreed that this matter shall be looked into. I gave my observations only in order to indicate what is the prima facie view of this matter. It may well be that the matter can be made more explicit, and I shall certainly see that it is examined.

LORD SCHUSTER

I thank the noble Lord for what he has said. I should like at the same time to express my apologies to the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, for anticipating him. It is rather difficult, with all this mass of Amendments, always to see clearly what each one means, and I am afraid I had not apprehended the matter fully.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, for his last remarks, though I thought the ones he read out were not quite so good. I think we all want the same things. First, we want these clerks to the justices to go on performing these services. Secondly, we want them to be specifically remunerated. Thirdly, we want, if they are offered a salary plus these fees, to ensure that the fees cannot be taken into account in discussing what is the appropriate salary, and in discussing the salary account should be taken of the loss the clerks have suffered by not being able still to get the fees. The fourth thing we want is to see that these things are clearly set forth in the Bill for the guidance of magistrates' courts committees. The only difference between us is whether it is sufficiently clear in the Bill as drafted, or whether it is not. I should be obliged if the noble Lord would look at it and see whether we cannot put some words in the Bill which will secure that all magistrates' courts committees, over the country as a whole, act in the way that the noble Lord and I and every noble Lord wishes them to do. On the undertaking the noble Lord has given, I now beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clause agreed to.

First Schedule agreed to.

Second Schedule [Provisions consequential on Changes in Commission of the Peace]:

LORD CHORLEY moved to leave out paragraph 1 and to insert:

"Interpretation

1.—(1) In this Schedule in relation to a time before the coming into force of section eight of this Act—

1. (a) the expression 'county' includes a riding or division of a county having a separate commission of the peace, the liberty of the Isle of Ely and the Soke of Peterborough, but does not include a county of a city or a town;
2. (b) references to the county in which a borough is situated, in the case of a borough which is a county of a city or a town, refer to the county by which it is surrounded or which it adjoins.

(2) In this Schedule the expression 'Hampshire' means the administrative county of Southampton and the expression 'county of Southampton' (except in this sub-paragraph) means the entire county of Southampton inclusive of the Isle of Wight.

(3) In this Schedule the expression 'borough losing its commission' means any non-county borough which has an existing commission of the peace but is not mentioned in the Schedule (Non-county boroughs retaining commissions of peace) in this Act.

Continuance of existing commissions, etc.

(2).—(1) The existing commission of the peace for any county and the supplemental list kept in connection therewith shall have effect for the county within the meaning of subsection (1) of section eight of this Act, and any existing appointment made in connection with the commission (including that of custos rotulorum and of any justice appointed otherwise than by the commission) and any existing appointment made by or in connection with any court of quarter sessions for the county or any division thereof shall have effect accordingly.

(2) The schedule to any existing commission of the peace for a borough losing its commission, or for the liberty of Ripon, and the supplemental list kept in connection with any such commission shall be treated for the purposes of the foregoing sub-paragraph as having formed part respectively of the schedule to the existing commission of the peace for the county in which the borough or liberty is situated and of the supplemental list kept in connection with that commission.

(3) The foregoing sub-paragraphs shall apply in relation to East and West Suffolk, to East and West Sussex and to Hampshire and the Isle of Wight as if they had been separate counties for the purposes of justices before the coming into force of section eight of this Act, and as if the existing commissions of the peace for the counties of Suffolk, Sussex and Southampton respectively had been issued separately for each of the two divisions thereof referred to in this sub-paragraph and the supplemental list kept in connection with any of those commissions had been a list for each of the two divisions.

(4) With respect to any such appointments in the counties of Suffolk, Sussex and Southampton as are referred to in sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph the following provisions shall have effect:

1. (a) the appointment of a custos rotulorum shall have effect as if made for each division of the county;
2. (b) any other appointments relating to the whole county shall have effect in Suffolk and Sussex as if made for each division thereof, and in the county of Southampton (subject to the following provisions of this Schedule) as if made for Hampshire;
3. (c) appointments made by the court of quarter sessions for the county of Southampton shall have effect as if made by a court of quarter sessions for the division to which they relate or, if they relate to the whole county, by a court of quarter sessions for Hampshire."

The noble Lord said: This is a very long Amendment of a drafting character. It is mainly consequential on the retention by some non-county boroughs of their commissions of the peace, and also on the decision that the Isle of Wight should have its separate commission and court of quarter session. I think those are the two main elements in this rather long and technical Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 36, line 25, leave out paragraph 1 and insert the said new paragraphs.—(Lord Chorley.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

I have read this Amendment through carefully, and so far as I am concerned—I do not speak for any other noble Lord—I do not think there is anything controversial in any part of it.

LORD CHORLEY moved, in paragraph 2 to omit "shall have effect for the county" and to insert: and that for the borough and cinque port of Dover shall have effect for the.

The noble Lord said: I am much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, for what he has just said. There is a whole group of consequential and drafting Amendments which go together with the one which I am now moving. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 36, line 40, leave out from ("Hastings") to ("borough"), and insert the said new words.—(Lord Chorley.)

LORD CHORLEY

This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 37, line 1, leave out paragraph 3.—(Lord Chorley.)

LORD CHORLEY

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 37, line 25, at end insert ("and the existing petty sessional divisions of the county of Southampton, except the Isle of Wight division, shall form petty sessional divisions of Hampshire").—(Lord Chorley.)

LORD CHORLEY

This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 37, line 28, leave out from second ("borough") to ("and") in line 29 and insert ("losing its commission").—(Lord Chorley.)

LORD CHORLEY

This also is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 37, line 33, leave out "3") and insert ("2").—(Lord Chorley.)

LORD CHORLEY

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 37, line 38, at end insert— ("(3) Sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph shall apply to the boroughs of Ryde and Newport in the Isle of Wight, notwithstanding that the Island is not otherwise divided into petty sessional divisions, and the remainder of the Island shall become a separate petty sessional division thereof").—(Lord Chorley.)

LORD CHORLEY

This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 37, line 40. Leave out ("county borough") and insert ("borough having separate commission of the peace").—(Lord chorley.)

LORD CHORLEY

This also is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 37, line 46, at beginning insert— ("(1) The justices' clerk for any existing petty sessional division of a county shall become justices' clerk for any petty sessional division formed out of the first mentioned division or any part thereof under paragraph 5 or sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 6 of this Schedule.")—(Lord Chorley.)

7.0 p.m.

LORD CHORLEY

This Amendment also is drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 37, line 46, leave out ("3") and insert ("2").—(Lord Chorley.)

LORD CHORLEY

This again is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 38, line 24, leave out ("non-county borough") and insert ("borough losing its commission").—(Lord Chorley.)

LORD CHORLEY

This again is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 39, line 11, leave out from beginning to end of line 15.—(Lord Chorley.)

LORD CHORLEY

This Amendment also is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 39, line 16, at end insert—

"Sheriffs

.—(1) In the application of the Sheriffs Act, 1887, to any sheriff or under sheriff for a county which includes two counties within the meaning of section eight of this Act, references to a justice of the peace for the county in the following provisions, that is to say—

1. (a) section seven and subsection (3) of section twenty-three (which relate to the making of a declaration of office before a justice); and
2. (b) section seventeen (which precludes the sheriff from acting as a justice);

shall be taken as references to a justice for either of the said two counties, and the reference in subsection (1) of section thirty (which provides for filing the declaration of office) to the clerk of the peace for the county shall be taken as a reference to the clerk of the peace having the custody of the records which include the declarations made before the coming into force of section eight of this Act.

(2) In the application of the said Act to any sheriff or under sheriff of Berwick-upon-Tweed, Carmarthen, Haverfordwest, or Lichfield (each of which is a borough losing its commission, but is a county of a city or a town) the said references shall be taken as references to a justice of the peace or the clerk of the peace, as the case may be, of the county within the meaning of section eight of this Act in which the borough is situated, and in the case of those boroughs any jurisdiction conferred by the said Act on the recorder of the borough may be exercised by the court of quarter sessions for the said county."—(Lord Chorley.)

LORD CHORLEY

This Amendment is consequential.

I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 39, line 19, at end insert—

"Special provisions for Hampshire and Isle of Wight

.—(1) The court of quarter sessions for the Isle of Wight shall not have jurisdiction to deal—

1. (a) with any person committed for trial or sentence before the date of the coming into force of section eight of this Act; or
2. (b) with any appeal brought (whether before that date or not) from a conviction, sentence, order or decision before that date, except an appeal against conviction brought by a person who is sentenced or committed for sentence in pursuance of the conviction after that date;

and the court of quarter sessions for Hampshire shall have the same jurisdiction to deal with any such person as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of this sub-paragraph and any such appeal as is mentioned in paragraph (b) thereof as if it were a court of quarter sessions for the county of Southampton.

(2) The justices for the Isle of Wight shall as soon as practicable after the coming into force of the said section eight hold a special sessions at which—

1. (a) they shall appoint a chairman of the court of quarter sessions for the Island, unless they determine to apply to the Lord Chancellor for the appointment of a legally qualified chairman under section one of the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1938;
2. (b) they shall appoint a clerk of the peace for the Island;
3. (c) they shall fix the times for holding quarter sessions for the Island in accordance with section twenty-two of the Criminal Justice Act, 1925;
4. (d) they shall make such other appointments and transact such other business (being appointments or business which a court of quarter sessions for a county has power to make or transact) as appear to them to be required before the first meeting of the court of quarter sessions for the Island.

(3) The justices for the Isle of Wight shall not be required to hold a court of quarter sessions before the expiration of three months from the coming into force of the said section eight, or have power by virtue of anything in paragraph (d) of the last foregoing sub-paragraph to deal at the special sessions required by that sub-paragraph with any person committed for trial or sentence or with any appeal.

(4) Notwithstanding the general provision of this Schedule limiting to Hampshire any appointments made for the whole county of Southampton by the court of quarter sessions thereof, any committee appointed by that court to act for the purposes of the Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910, as compensation or confirming authority for the county of Southampton shall, until the expiration of one year from the beginning of the last Epiphany sessions for the county of Southampton, continue to act as aforesaid as if the county of Southampton remained one county for purposes of justices and as if the justices for Hampshire and the justices for the Isle of Wight were justices for the county of Southampton:

Provided that casual vacancies on any such committee shall be filled by the court of quarter sessions for Hampshire.

(5) Notwithstanding the general provision referred to in the last foregoing sub-paragraph, the following provisions shall have effect with respect to appointments made under the Lunacy Act, 1890, by the court of quarter sessions for the county of Southampton, namely—

1. (a) any appointment under section ten of that Act of a justice to make reception orders, if at the coming into force of section eight of this Act the justice is resident in the Isle of Wight, shall have effect for the Island as if made by a court of quarter sessions for the Island, and shall not have effect for Hampshire unless the justice is the n resident in Hampshire too; and
2. (b) until the expiration of one year from the beginning of the last Michaelmas quarter 303 sessions for the county of Southampton. the visitors of licensed houses appointed under section one hundred and seventy-seven of that Act shall continue to act as such for the whole county of Southampton as if it remained one county for purposes of justices and as if the justices for Hampshire and the justices for the Isle of Wight were justices for the county of Southampton, so, however, that any power or duty of quarter sessions in relation to the visitors shall belong to the court of quarter sessions for Hampshire and any reference to the clerk of the peace in relation to the visitors shall be construed as a reference to the clerk of the peace for Hampshire.

(6) As at the date when the committee referred to in sub-paragraph (4) of this paragraph ceases to act as compensation authority for the county of Southampton, the assets standing to the credit of the accounts of Hampshire and of the Isle of Wight in the compensation fund of the said authority shall respectively become assets of the compensation fund of the compensation authority for Hampshire and of the compensation authority for the Isle of Wight, and any rights or liabilities of the authority for the county of Southampton in respect of their fund shall vest in the authority for Hampshire or the authority for the Isle of Wight accordingly.

(7) Any buildings which at the coming into force of section eight of this Act are vested in or held in trust for the Hampshire and Isle of Wight county councils jointly and are used in connection with assizes or with quarter sessions shall pass to, vest in and be held in trust for the Hampshire county council alone, and there shall cease to have effect any special provision made in relation to quarter sessions by the order constituting the Isle of Wight a separate county and confirmed by the Local Government Board's Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 2) Act, 1889.

(8) In determining the costs of assizes for the purposes of the said order, the expenses of the Hampshire county council in respect of any buildings which besides being used in connection with assizes are used in connection with the Hampshire quarter sessions or for administrative purposes of that council shall be treated as costs of assizes so far only as may be determined by agreement between the Hampshire and Isle of Wight county councils or, in default of agreement, by arbitration.

(9) There shall also be determined as aforesaid any other question arising between those councils with respect to their property and liabilities in consequence of the coming into force of section eight of this Act."—(Lord Chorley.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

I should like to thank the noble Lord and those who work under him for the immense care they have taken in working out the repercussions of my Amendment to give the Isle of Wight a separate quarter sessions to which this long Amendment refers.

LORD CHORLEY

I expect the officials have heard what the noble Lord has said. If not, I will have it conveyed to them.

LORD CHORLEY

This again is drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 39, line 21, leave out ("3") and insert ("2").—(Lord Chorley.)

LORD CHORLEY

This is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 39, line 44, leave out ("two") and insert ("three").—(Lord Chorley.)

LORD CHORLEY

There are three Amendments here which go together—namely, the Amendment to page 40, line 8, the one to page 40, line 15, and the one to page 40, line 19. They are all drafting Amendments. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 40, line 8, leave out from ("justices") to the third ("of") in line 9, and insert ("(including recorders) in consequence of the establishment or abolition by this Act of any commission of the peace or court").—(Lord Chorley.)

Amendment moved— Page 40, line 15, leave out from ("sessions") to end of line 16 and insert ("(including a recorder) by any Act or other instrument;").(Lord Chorley.)

Amendment moved— Page 40, line 19, after ("the") insert ("establishment,").—(Lord Chorley.)

LORD CHORLEY

This Amendment also is drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 41, line 1, leave out paragraph 17.—(Lord Chorley.)

LORD CHORLEY

This again is drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 41, line 22, leave out paragraph 20.—(Lord Chorley.)

Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

LORD CHORLEY

The next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

"NON-COUNTY BOROUGHS RETAINING COMMISSIONS OF PEACE
PART I
Boroughs with a population of 75,000 or over
Cambridge	Luton	Poole

—(Lord Chorley)

Third Schedule [Constitution, etc., of Magistrates' Courts Committees]:

LORD CHORLEY

This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 41, line 42, leave out paragraphs 1 and 2 and insert:

("Constitution, establishment, etc. of committees

1.—(1) A magistrates' courts committee shall be composed of magistrates for the county or borough for which the committee acts or, in the case of a committee for a joint committee area, each such county or borough.

(2) The custos rotulorum of a county shall by virtue of his office he a member of any magistrates' courts committee acting for the county or any division thereof.

(3) The magistrates' courts committee for a county divided into petty sessional divisions, or for a joint committee area including such a county, shall consist (in addition to the custos and, in the case of a joint committee area, to the members from other parts of the area) of one magistrate chosen from amongst themselves by the magistrates for each of the petty sessional divisions of the county and one magistrate chosen from amongst themselves by the magistrates for each of the non-county boroughs (if any) in the county which have a separate commission of the peace but no separate magistrates' courts committee.

(4) The magistrates' courts committee for a county not divided into petty sessional divisions or for a borough shall consist (in addition, in the case of a county, to the custos) of such number of magistrates chosen by the magistrates of the county or borough as they ma y determine.

(5) The magistrates' courts committee for a joint committee area which includes a county

Amendment moved— After the Second Schedule, insert the following new Schedule:

not divided into petty sessional divisions or a county borough shall consist (in addition to the custos of any such county included in the area and to the members from other parts of the area) of such number of magistrates chosen from amongst themselves by the magistrates for the county or borough as may for the time being be determined by or in accordance with the order directing that the area shall be a joint committee area.

(6) The Secretary of State may by statutory instrument make general regulations (subject, except as hereinafter mentioned, to the foregoing provisions of this paragraph) about the constitution and quorum of magistrates' courts committees.

(7) The regulations may—

1. (a) lay down upper and lower limits for the number of members of which the committee for a county not divided into petty sessional divisions or fer a borough may be composed; and
2. (b) direct that where, in a county divided into petty sessional divisions, the total number of the divisions and of the boroughs referred to in sub-paragraph (3) of this paragraph is less than that specified in the regulations, there shall from each division or borough be such number of members on any magistrates' courts committee acting for the county as may be so specified (the number being the same for all the divisions and boroughs).

(8) The Secretary of State may give general or special directions with respect to summoning the first meetings of magistrates' courts committees.

2.—(l) There shall be a single magistrates' courts committee for a joint committee area if, but only if, the area is for the time being directed by an order of the Secretary of State to be a joint committee area.

(2) No order directing that an area shall be a joint committee area shall be made except on the application of the magistrates for each county or county borough included in the area.

3.—(1) There shall be a separate magistrates' courts committee for a non-county borough having a separate commission of the peace and a population at the time of the establishment of the committee of seventy-five thousand or over, if, but only if, it is for the time being so directed by an order of the Secretary of State.

(2) No order directing that there shall be, or shall cease to be, a separate magistrates' courts committee for such a borough shall be made except on the application of the magistrates for the borough.")—(Lord Chorley.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

On this Amendment I should like to make one point. In a way it is consequential, but it is a little more than that, because it sets out for the first time quite clearly how these magistrates' courts committees are to be composed. I have only one point to make on this. If your Lordships will look at sub-paragraph (3), you will see that the magistrates' courts committee, in the case of a county with petty sessional divisions, is to consist of …one magistrate chosen from amongst themselves by the magistrates for each of the petty sessional divisions.… Apart from those, that is, one from each petty sessional division, who will be there largely to talk for the petty sessional division—there will be only the custos rotulorum, whom we added last time, with no power to co-opt or anything of that sort. I suggest that a natural person to be on this magistrates' courts committee in the counties will be the chairman of quarter sessions. I think he ought to be on equally with the custos.

When the noble Marquess, Lord Exeter, proposed the custos, I do not think he necessarily meant that the custos should be the person to be elected chairman, but merely that he should have the right to serve. Normally, in a county I think it would be better to be able to have somebody like the chairman of quarter sessions; probably all the justices would agree to his being chairman, and if anything came up about the division of the petty sessional department boundaries they would have certainly an independent and impartial person in the chair. I would like to see sub-paragraph (2) altered to read as follows: The custos rotulorum and the chairmen of quarter sessions of a county shall by virtue of their offices be members of any magistrates' courts committee… and so on. I would like the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor to look into that point, if he would, before Report stage and, if he can meet the point, to put down an Amendment. At any rate, I would like to give him notice now that I think it would be a reasonable Amendment for the Report stage of this measure.

THE MARQUESS OF EXETER

With regard to the chairman of quarter sessions being a member of the magistrates' courts committee, no one on earth would have the slightest objection to his being a member of the magistrates' courts committee. Many of the chairmen of quarter sessions, however, come from an entirely different part of the country, and it would probably be a strain upon them to have to attend the magistrates' courts committee. Therefore, I would like to see it provided that, "If they so wish" they shall be ex-officio members. I do not know whether that arrangement could be made.

LORD ROCHE

I should desire to associate myself with the noble Marquess. I think that the chairman of quarter sessions should be ex officio a member if he so desires. I am aware that in a county where there is so energetic a custos as the noble Marquess, the chairman might not find it necessary to attend. But there are other counties where, if he is brought in from outside, the custos might not be able to go. The custos is not so interested in or conversant with magisterial matters, and the chairman of quarter sessions may be the only person to take a lead in all matters of the magistrates' courts committee. I think it would be a profound mistake to leave him out altogether.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, was good enough to mention to me privately to-day this suggestion, and I told him that at first blush I liked it. I will therefore look into it and consider putting in a clause on Report stage. My present mind is to include such a clause. Whether it should be, as the noble Marquess, Lord Exeter, suggested, that he should have the right to come, or words to that effect, or whether it should be that the Lord Chancellor should have the right to ask him to be a member of the committee and that it should not be an obligation, I am not sure. For myself, I am a little inclined to think that there is something in the latter course. There are many chairmen of quarter sessions whom I shall be very glad to have, but there are other chairmen of quarter sessions who are not sufficiently identified with the county to make them very desirable. It might be that discretion should be with the Lord Chancellor, or it might be that we should leave it to the chairmen of quarter sessions. However, I will think it over in my own mind to see whether we should have some provision for dealing with this. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, for raising the point.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I am much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. I am sure he will not take it ill if I correct him and say that the discretion is with the Secretary of State. This is one of the cases where we tried to substitute the Lord Chancellor for the Secretary of State, and the Lord Chancellor declined. In many cases, of course, the chairman of quarter sessions, although a magistrate for a bench, does not identify himself a great deal with that bench. He does not sit there regularly and they are much more likely to send their own chairman. For that very reason, the chairman of quarter sessions is not very likely to be sent as a representative to the magistrates' courts committee, from the very fact that he thinks it is his duty to keep out. There is a great deal within the petty sessional field for which he has to reserve himself, such as appeal work and other things. May I just add, as one of these chairmen of quarter sessions, that I am sure in many counties it would be a great help indeed for the chairman of quarter sessions to be a member of this committee?

LORD CHORLEY

This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 42, line 25, leave out paragraph 4.—(Lord Chorley.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

I do not know whether I should be in order in suggesting this: I have looked through the whole of these Amendments from here onwards; I do not know whether any other noble Lord wants to talk about any of them. I came to the conclusion that they were all consequential on something we had done before.

LORD SCHUSTER

All to the end?

LORD LLEWELLIN

Yes.

LORD SCHUSTER

I was going to ask a question one page 27 of the Marshalled List, relating to page 62, line 45, which deals with the Middlesex County Council Act.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

I had better go through the Amendments. I think we can take the Amendments to the end of this Schedule.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I beg to move the remaining Amendments to the Third Schedule.

Amendments moved—

Page 42, line 45, leave out ("the three last") and insert ("any of the").

Page 42, line 49, leave out ("paragraphs 2 and 4") and insert ("paragraph 2").

Page 43, line 5, at end insert—

("Any order of Secretary of State under paragraph 2, 3 or 4 of this Schedule may, if it relates to an area for which a magistrates' courts committee is already acting, contain such consequential and transitional provisions for the preservation of rights and liabilities of that committee or otherwise as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient.")

Page 43, line 7, leave out paragraph 6.

Page 43, Line 36, leave out the first ("county").

Page 43, line 42, at end insert ("including quorum").

Page 43, line 44, leave out paragraph 12.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Fourth Schedule [Modifications of Local Government Superannuation Act, 1937, in relation to Justices' Clerks and their Staff]:

7.12 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I beg to move the Amendments to the Fourth Schedule.

Amendments moved—

Page 46, line 1, leave out ("on its establishment").

Page 46,line 8, leave out ("establishment of the magistrates' courts' committee") and insert ("coming into force of section sixteen of this Act").

Page 47, line 11, leave out from ("of") to ("council") and insert ("any relevant").

Page 47, line 20, leave out from ("which") to end of line 21 and insert ("section sixteen of this Act comes into force").

Page 47, line 28, at end insert—

("(5) The relevant councils for the purposes of this paragraph are the councils of any county, any county borough and any borough named in the Schedule (non-county boroughs retaining commissions of peace) to this Act.")

Page 47, line 34, leave out ("on its establishment").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

Fourth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Fifth Schedule [Consequential Provisions as to Local Act Stipendiaries]:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I beg to move the Amendments to the Fifth Schedule.

Amendments moved—

Page 47, line 43, at end insert ("and for any non-county borough having for the time being a separate commission of the peace and magistrates' courts' committee which is situated within the area for which he acts.")

Page 47, line 44, leave out the third ("the") and insert ("any such")

Page 48, line 3, after ("Bromwich") insert ("or for any non-county borough having for the time being a separate commission of the peace and magistrates' courts' committee")

Page 47, line 9, leave out ("county")

("52 & 53 Vict. c. clxvii.

The Local Government Board's Provisional Order confirmation (No.2) Act, 1889.

In the Schedule, in Article VI, the words 'custosrotulorum,' the words 'quarter sessions, justices' and the words 'and clerk of the peace'; paragraph (1) of Article VII; in paragraph (2) of Article VII the words 'or quarter sessions'; paragraph (2) of Article VIII; Articles IX, XI and XII; in Article XV the words from the beginning to 'Southampton and' where first occurring and the words 'and quarter sessions'; in Articles XVI and XVII the words 'and quarter sessions' wherever occurring, and in paragraph (2) of Article XVII the words from 'and all' to 'order'.")

Page 59, line 20, column 3, after ("repeal") insert ("in section five, the words from 'at' to 'State';")

Page 59, line 20, at end insert—

("58 & 59 Vict. c.cvii.

The Staffordshire Potteries Stipendiary Justice Act, 1895.

Section eight.")

Page 48, line 28, at end insert—

("(3) The stipendiary magistrate under the said Acts shall be by virtue of his office a justice of the peace for any non-county borough having for the time being a separate commission of the peace and magistrates' courts' committee which is situated within the area for which he acts.")

Page 48, line 32, after ("borough") insert ("and any such non-county borough as aforesaid")

Page 48, line 34, leave out ("county") and insert ("such").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

Fifth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Sixth Schedule [Repeals]:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I beg to move the Amendments to the Sixth Schedule.

Amendments moved—

Page 52, line 52, column 3, at beginning insert ("In section six, the words from 'at the rate' to year';")

Page 53, line 5, column 3, after ("thirty-four") insert ("section forty-two;")

Page 56, leave out lines 20 and 21.

Page 56, line 32, column 3, after ("repeal") insert ("section twenty-one from the beginning to the words pounds and';")

Page 56, leave out lines 57 to 59.

Page 57, line 19, column 3, at end insert ("section forty-two from the word 'not' where first occurring onwards;")

Page 57, line 42, column 3, leave out from beginning to ("subsections") in line 44.

Page 57, line 48, leave out from ("sixty") to ("section") in line 51, and insert ("section one hundred and sixty-one")

Page 57, line 56, column 3, leave out ("coroner of Hastings and Dover")

Page 58, line 24, column 3, leave out ("section thirty-seven")

Page 58, line 45, at end insert—

Page 59, line 28, column 3, at beginning insert ("In subsection (5) of section fifteen, the words from 'of one' to 'be paid';").

Page 60, line 4, column 3, leave out from ("(3)") to ("to") in line 8.

Page 60, line 12, column 3, leave out from ("two") to end of line 36, and insert ("subsection (3) except the words (3) For the purposes of this Act as respects a licensing district being a borough the licensing justices are the borough licensing committee', and subsection (5); in section three, subsection (1) from 'during' onwards and subsection (2); section

("7 & 8 Geo. 6. c.xxi.

The Middlesex County Council Act,1944.

Sections three hundred and ninety-seven, three hundred and ninety-eight and four hundred and eighteen, the Fifth Schedule except paragraph (f) and in that paragraph the words 'any officer to whom this Schedule applies or'.")

Page 63, line 9, at end insert—

("12 & 13 Geo. 6. c.27.

The Juries Act, 1949…

In subsection (4) of section six the words 'or at a court of quarter sessions held for that county'; in section nine the Words and quarter sessions' in both places.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Whether the Sixth Schedule, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

LORD SCHUSTER

If the Committee will excuse my irregularity, because we are all a little irregular at the moment, I would like to ask a question in regard to the Amendment to page 62, line 45, at the end of this Marshalled List. Can the noble Lord in charge of the Bill tell us the meaning of all this? It is almost impossible to follow what the effect of these Amendments is on the Middlesex County Council Act, or how the Middlesex arrangements will stand after they have been made.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I think the provisions of the Middlesex County Council Act of 1944, are those relating to the appointment of justices' clerks and their staff, and the performance by the justices' clerk of collecting officer's duties and supervision are replaced by the comprehensive provisions in regard to these matters made in Part III of this Bill. Consequently it is necessary to repeal those provisions in the Act of 1944, the whole matter having been dealt with in Part III.

LORD SCHUSTER

I am sorry to be stupid, but does it come to this: Middlesex would be in just the same position as any other county when the Act is passed in respect of these matters?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Yes.

four; in section seven, in subsection (2) the words or joint committee';").

Page 60, line 39, column 3, leave out from ("twenty-nine") to ("section") in line 41, and insert ("in subsection (1) of section forty-nine the words from 'held' to 'is the clerk';").

Page 61, line 19, column 3, after ("repeal") insert ("in section seven the words from 'at' to 'State';").

Page 61, line 55, column 3, after ("eighteen") insert ("in subsection (7) the words from the first 'and' to 'ceases to be mayor,'").

Page 62, leave out lines 20 to 22.

Page 62, line 45, at end insert—

LORD MERTHYR

I would like to refer to the Amendment to page 61, line 33. On the last occasion I moved an Amendment to repeal Section 76 of the Salmon and Fresh Water Fisheries Act of 1923, and the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, said in column 1311: I think the noble Lord is right about this, but 1 shall be glad if he will withdraw so that the draftsman can look at the point and put down an Amendment on the next stage. I then withdrew my Amendment, but I see no Amendment at this stage. May I ask the noble Lord whether he can help me a little?

LORD CHORLEY

The noble Lord is quite right; I did give him that assurance. I am sorry to say that it has been overlooked, but I will look at it later on in time for the Report stage.

LORD MERTHYR

Thank you very much.

Sixth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

House resumed.