MR. COLE would strongly support this clause. There were many cases in which a breach of the peace had been technically committed, but in which a man had been so provoked or outraged by the misconduct of another that he might be well excused morally, although in point of law his offence could not be justified. And there were many other cases on which a magistrate would not wish to submit a man to the indignity of a conviction, but while, at the same time, the man had really broken the law. Under these circumstances, he was most strongly in favour of the clause. With regard to the argument that there was one law for the rich and another for the poor, that was not his experience. A man who was rich, or in a superior condition in life, generally fared worse before a magistrate than his poorer brethren. to a Judge of a Court of Summary Juris- | practices, which would be very undiction to the magistrates after proof desirable. of the commission of an act which the law said should be an offence, to say that no punishment should be inflicted. The lause had been inserted with the view that there should be an opportunity for the magistrates, if they thought that an offence, though technically it had been committed, yet did not deserve punishment, to allow the offender to go without conviction. That involved a very grave principle, for it placed those concerned in the administration of the law in a position to do a very great injustice. Judges and magistrates might have prejudices of a particular kind, and a magistrate might say "I quite admit that the law has been broken; but, because I think the law wrong, I will not enforce it." A Judge might say-"There ought to be no law against poaching;" and such a man would be placed by this clause in a position to control the Legislature, by not carrying the law into effect. Probably, to Courts of Summary Jurisdiction this objection would not so much apply, for there would not be opportunities for a Justice supposing himself capable of preventing serious offences being dealt with. But his object in seeking to call attention to the clause was that he feared that if it passed the principle of it would be extended to the Criminal Code Bill, and to Bills of a similar character. He was, therefore, anxious to make a protest against its being said that through the acceptance of the clause in the present Bill the House had accepted the principle of giving Judges the power of at once dismissing prisoners if they thought the law unjust. Some of his hon. Friends, for whose opinions he had the greatest respect, were, he knew, in favour of such a provision. He, however, took the opportunity of stating his disagreement with the clause, and protesting against its principle being applied in more important matters. MR. WHITWELL said, that this clause enabled a Justice to pass by a rich man, and allow him to go away unconvicted by paying some expenses which were nothing to him. There was a tendency, in many Jnstances, to extenuate in favour of persons well off; he did not mean that it was always so-much to the contrary-but still they did see it, and this clause opened a door to such VOL. CCXLVI. [THIRD SERIES.] THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON) observed, that the clause gave the magistrates a certain discretion. It was placed in the discretion of the magistrates, if they considered that the ends of justice were met and thought fit to exercise the power, to refrain from convicting a person who had unquestionably committed a breach of the peace. That seemed to him to be a very reasonable provision. MR. COURTNEY said, that this was not the only case in which a discretion was given to the magistrates. The Court might discharge a prisoner conditionally on his giving security, with or without sureties, to come up for sentence if called upon to do so. That was one case. But now it was proposed to give a magistrate the power to say that a charge was proved, but that the offender was not to be convicted. It seemed to him that that was a new and totally unheard of discretion. MR. ASSHETON CROSS said, that anyone conversant with the practice of the magistrates' Courts would know that it very often must happen that although a magistrate thought a case legally proved, yet he did not wish to do anything. This clause was inserted to legalize what had been done before in an informal manner. He might further say that any magistrate discharging a prisoner because he disagreed with the law would be guilty of corruption in his office. E MR. CHARLEY remarked, that a power similar to that given by this clause was contained in the Criminal Justice Act. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 17 (Trial by jury in case of offences triable summarily) agreed to. Clause 18 (Imprisonment in cases of cumulative sentences not to exceed six months) agreed to. Clause 19 (Appeal from summary conviction to general or quarter sessions) agreed to. Clause 20 (Sitting of court of summary jurisdiction as a petty sessional court, and in occasional court-house) agreed to. Clause 21 (Special provisions as to warrants of commitment for nonpayment of sums of money, and as to warrants of distress) agreed to. Supplemental Provisions. Clause 22 (Register of court of summary jurisdiction) agreed to. SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT moved to report Progress, as they were now coming to an entirely different part of the Bill. (NO. 2) BILL. Considered in Committee. (In the Committee.) Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Law with respect to the liability of members of Banking and other Joint Stock Companies. Resolution reported: - Bill ordered to be brought in by Dr. CAMERON, Sir ANDREW LUSK, Mr. HOPWOOD, and Mr. EARP. Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 168.] House adjourned at half after One o'clock till Monday next. HOUSE OF LORDS, Monday, 12th May, 1879. MINUTES.]-PUBLIC BILLS-First Reading- Third Reading-Land Drainage Provisional Order (Bispham, &c.) * (65), and passed. SOUTH AFRICA-THE ZULU WAR-THE LATEST TELEGRAMS. OBSERVATION. EARL CADOGAN: My Lords, perhaps it may be convenient that I should read the following telegram which has been received at the Colonial Office to-day : "Telegram from Mr. Hampden Willis, Secretary to the High Commissioner, Cape Town, to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, dated St. Vincent, 12th, 10.40 a.m., received Colonial Office, 12th, 1.50 p.m. :-April 27.-High Commissioner, at Pretoria, telegraphs that Boers' Camp broke up on the 18th inst., and all have ference between High Commissioner and Boers' dispersed quietly to their homes. The conCommittee at Erasmus Farm took place April 12th, lasted five hours and a half, and passed off in perfectly friendly manner.' RACECOURSES (METROPOLIS) BILL. (The Viscount Enfield.) (NO. 45.) SECOND READING. Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read. VISCOUNT ENFIELD, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that the measure was promoted as a protection to local residents and in the interests of the Turf. The measure had been before the public for the last three years, and during its passage through the House of Commons had received the support of Her Majesty's Government, and more especially of those who were connected with the Home Office, and who were, therefore, most responsible for good order within the Metropolitan area. The late Under Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Henry SelwinIbbetson), and Sir Matthew White Ridley, the present Under Secretary, spoke and voted in favour of the second reading when the Bill was in the House of Com mons; and on March 6, 1879, the if not satisfied. Those of their LordSecretary of State (Mr. Cross) himself in Committee said "He only spoke in the interest of public order, when he said that had not people seen that these races were conducted in an improper manner the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) would not have brought forward the Bill. But the races in question had not been conducted with proper decency." He could have wished that the charge of the Bill had been intrusted to some Member of their Lordships' House who was also a member of the Jockey Club, as an earnest of their desire for reforming and purifying the great national pastime of horse-racing; and, certainly, the abuse with which the Bill dealt was one which required immediate remedy. But although the Bill might be justly described as miserably inadequate to securing these purposes, still it did something in the way of affording protection to the peaceable and orderly inhabitants of the suburban districts, whose retirement was now continually infested by the disreputable mobs who attended the gate-money meetings. After the passing of this Bill, horse races within 10 miles of London, unless licensed, would be unlawful. He did not think the area was wide enough; and he would be prepared to support any noble Lord who might propose, in Committee, to extend it to 12 or 14 miles. He had been told that the Bill interfered with the rational amusement of a great multitude of excellent and well-conducted people. So far from that being the case, the Bill enabled the Justices at the Michaelmas Quarter Sessions to grant licences at their discretion on the application of any person, being the owner or occupier of any open or inclosed land, desirous of obtaining a licence for horse-racing therein. The application was to be made and disposed of in the same manner as applications for licences for places for dancing and music. The magistrates would hear the application and the evidence in its favour, and any opposition that might be offered; and if the applicant were of good character, the place suitable, and the arrangements were such as would secure that the proceedings would be conducted in an orderly manner, and the inhabitants of the neighbourhood favourable, they would grant the licence; or they might withhold it ships who were members of the Jockey Club were well aware of the nature and benefit of those who were not, he would character of gate-meetings; but for the give a brief description of them. A sporting publican who rented a few acres of grass got up these races, built a stand, erected booths, and charged a toll on those who came upon the ground. A mob of low betting-men, welshers, sharpers, roughs, and pickpockets were attracted; and the unhappy animals which were engaged in these contests were of such a character and condition that probably no cab or van proprietor would give £25 for the winner of the so-called "Great Swindleham and Milkham Handicap." With such wellestablished and interesting meetings as Epsom and Ascot within an easy distance of town, where the best horses and the most interesting contests were witnessed, such mushroom gatherings as Kingsbury, West Drayton, Croydon, Eltham, Bromley, Streatham, Enfield, and others, were not needed in the interests of true sport. He confessed he had heard with feelings of great regret that" the Turf Parliament" were hostile to the measure, and were not disposed to give the Bill a second reading. He wished to speak with all respect of the Jockey Club as a court of honour; but in these days private individuals and corporate bodies with irresponsible power were amenable to the public for their actions, and if their actions did not come up to the public requirements they must expect hostile criticism. He feared that that was the case with the Jockey Club at this moment. What had that Turf Parliament done for the sport of racing during the last 10 years? On this subject he would call a distinguished witness into court, one who was now no more, but whose name was yet honoured in the land-the late Earl of Derby. Ten years ago, Lord Derby addressed his celebrated letter to Sir Joseph Hawley, and in it was this remarkable passage "St. James's Square, May 28, 1869.-I cannot conceal my opinion that your resolutions deal with only one of the vices which, as it seems to me, are yearly lowering the character of the Turf. I know that some persons consider the multiplication of races and of starters a sign of its success. I look on them as the very opposite, and I should hail with satisfaction the disappearance from the Calendar of one-half of the present meetings. I take it that the deterio- who cannot afford to wait for a return of their were synonymous with honourable con- "His partner's delight and the chaperon's fear, And what were the evils on which Lord Derby particularly animadverted? First, early two-year-old racing; second, multiplication of inferior race meetings. throughout the country; third, encouragement given to short races, halfmile scrambles, which were no test of the real merits of a horse. He (Viscount Enfield) would now add two The public complained that the Jockey other evils with which the Jockey Club Club endorsed these names, if not with had not grappled-the sanctioning play actual approbation, yet with toleration, or pay betting for handicaps-one of for they received a fee of 25 guineas for the most fruitful sources of fraud every such name which was registered; and robbery, and last, but not least, and if his noble Friend the senior the prevalent fashion of allowing horses Steward of the Jockey Club felt any to run under assumed names for their qualms of conscience, he might rub his owners or co-proprietors. This last hands, while he thought of this tax, and had done more to deteriorate the cha- say with the old Roman financier, racter of the Turf during the last few "Non olet." In contrast to our Turf years than anything else. During the senators, what had the French Jockey 10 years since Lord Derby wrote his Club done? In future no horses would letter, one solitary measure of reform be allowed to compete at any of the was passed by the Jockey Club-and meetings held under the Jockey Club in that was, he believed, rescinded again France that had run at a meeting orwithin 18 months. He alluded to ganized as a private speculation, and Colonel Forester's excellent proposal not where a special tax was levied on the to allow two-year-olds to run before the list-keepers or ready-money betters. He 1st of May. The Jockey Club, no would sum up his remarks by asking doubt, expected that the gentlemen who their Lordships to read the Bill a second accepted the office of steward at these time. He did so as a magistrate and meetings would see that they were con- ratepayer in the Metropolitan county. ducted with decorum. But reliance on He urged its acceptance in the interests these stewards was nugatory-he should of good order, and as some slight security like to see the gentleman who valued for the protection of the householders, either his character or his watch who who were injuriously affected by the would attend such meetings. Assumed annual recurrence many times over of names were a fertile source of fraud, as these Saturnalia; but he did so especially the public did not know who were the real in the interests of the old national pasproprietors of the horses which ran. In time of horse-racing. Though he seldom former days the owners of racehorses now attended races, and scarcely ever had names which, in public estimation, betted, no member of the Jockey Club Viscount Enfield took a livelier interest in the national pastime than himself-in the various oldestablished meetings, the "form" shown by horses, and the manner in which the various crosses of breeding told-and no one would more rejoice than he should were the Jockey Club to bestir themselves in earnest in endeavouring to sweep away the hideous abuses which now existed, and by drastic measures of reform render to racing once again the honourable appellation it formerly deservedly enjoyed of being "the sport of Kings. or 50, or what any of these clauses are intended to enact. My noble Friend was bound to tell us how he intended to do away with what he calls this injury to the ratepayers of the Metropolis. Not only did he not tell us how the Bill would effect its purpose, but he avowed his anxiety to extend its provisions. My noble Friend appears to have run away into a sort of lecture to the Jockey Club, and commented severely on the countenance they had given to persons who ran horses under assumed names. But when he spoke of the assumed Mored, "That the Bill be now read 2" names under which horses were entered, -(The Viscount Enfield.) LORD ST. LEONARDS, who was nearly inaudible, said, that he regarded the proposed legislation as an unjustifiable attempt to interfere with the amusements of the humbler class, while it left those of the richer and more leisurely classes untouched. Why should they attempt to suppress such meetings as Kingsbury and Croydon, and leave out Kempton and Sandown? He would move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion(this day six months.")-(The Lord St. Leonards.) THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: I shall give my cordial support to the Motion of the noble Lord who has moved the rejection of the Bill. My noble Relative who introduced the measure (Viscount Enfield) dislikes those small meetings which take place in the neighbourhood of London. I can assure him that none in this House or the country can have a greater dislike to them than I have. I take a great interest in the national pastime of racing. I think these small meetings have done an infinity of harm, and I hope to see them put a stop to, and anything I can do either in or out of this House to carry out that view will certainly be done. My noble Relative stated that the Bill which he asked your Lordships to read a second time was miserably inadequate to the object for which it was intended, and that was the only thing he told us about the Bill. We have not, from the beginning to the end of his speech-anything to let us know whether the Bill consists of one clause he forgets that anyone can ascertain who these assumed names represent. I quite agree, however, with my noble Friend that the use of assumed and grotesque names is not right, and that such names are objectionable. My noble Friend contrasts the names of former days with the names connected with the Turf now; but I cannot agree with him that ail the racing of the present day is done under assumed names. I will read him a few modern names, and I doubt if he will have a single word to say against them. What does he say to these names the Duke of Westminster, the Earl of Stamford, the Earl of Rosebery, the Earl of Rosslyn, the Earl of Wilton, the Duke of Hamilton, Lord Sefton, Lord Falmouth, Lord Vivian, the Earl of Cork, Lord Fitzwilliam, and last, but not least in the list, the Marquess of Hartington, to whom, I think, my noble Relative will give credit for high principle? The assumed names are registered, and they can easily be ascertained; and on the ground of running in assumed names my noble Relative has not made out his case. My noble Relative has given no reasons for the second reading of the Bill; I will endeavour to show why the Bill should not be read a second time. In the first place, I think it is an unnecessary Bill, because the Stewards of the Jockey Club and the magistrates have the power to put an end to these meetings, and they do put a stop to them. Another reason is that the Bill is too despotic and tyrannical in its character. Why should the scope of this Bill stop within 10 miles of the Metropolis? My noble Relative is prepared to extend the area to 12 or 14 miles. But why stop at 12 or 14 miles? It is said that these meetings are a nuisance to the inhabitants of the Metropolis. But |