"Having regard to the character and antece- | dents of the person charged, the nature of the case, and all the circumstances of the case." Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. power on conviction of making the person doing it pay damages. SIR HENRY JAMES said, that, of course, if a man were convicted, the magistrates could impose the payment of damages upon him. This clause was to meet the case of a man who had not Clause 13 (Summary trial on plea of been convicted, and, without his being guilty of adult) agreed to. Clause 14 (Restriction on summary dealing with adult charged with indictable offence) agreed to. Clause 15 (Restriction on punishment of child for summary offence) agreed to. Clause 16 (Power of court to discharge accused without punishment). MR. COLE thought that it was unwise to insert the word "damages" in the clause. If a person were not to be convicted it was well for the Court to have power to make him pay such costs as were thought desirable; but if there was a power given to the magistrate to make him pay damages for any offence, he might be condemned to pay a much larger sum than any fine which the Act imposed. He thought, therefore, that it was a serious thing to leave open the question of damages, for a person who might unintentionally have caused damages which might amount to a large sum might, in this way, be compelled to pay them, instead of leaving the party claiming the damages to his civil right. He, therefore, moved to omit the word "damages" in page 8, line 34. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER) said, that it seemed to him desirable in certain cases for the magistrates to have power to award damages when the case had been proved but they did not think that it merited punishment. But he agreed with his hon. and learned Friend that they ought not to have the power to award unlimited damages, and he thought it would be well to strike out the words "such damages" wherever they occurred, and allow the magistrates not to proceed to conviction, but to dismiss the information and award costs. SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT thought that when small damage to the amount of a shilling, or something of that kind was committed, it ought to be a part of the punishment that the offender should be fined to pay for the damage he had done. A window might be broken, for instance, and there ought to be a Mr. Gregory convicted, there was a power to make him pay unlimited damages. If a man were convicted, the amount of damages that he could be made to pay was limited; whereas, if he were not convicted, he could be made to pay unlimited damages. It was to strike out the latter provision that his hon. and learned Friend had moved. MR. ASSHETON CROSS observed, that he was entirely with his hon. and gallant Friend behind him (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) as to the desirability of magistrates having the power to order payment of damages for small offences. But if there were any serious damages, the magistrates had not the power to award them. MR. PAGET wished to say that this subject had been well considered by the Committee, and that the words were deliberately inserted in favour of persons charged with small offences. If the words were struck out, there would be no power to make a person, against whom the magistrates wished to dismiss the charge, pay damages. The words were really in favour of the person charged with an offence, for without them he could not be made to pay damages without convicting him. The object of the sub-section was that a person could be made to pay damages as compensation, if the magistrates thought it desirable, without proceeding to conviction. MR. ASSHETON CROSS inquired if his hon. and learned Friend would be content if "damages not exceeding forty shillings" were substituted for the present provision? MR. COLE expressed himself satisfied with the proposed Amendment. Amendment agreed to. Amendment, in line 24, page 8 after the word "and," to insert "such," agreed to. SIR HENRY JAMES was unwilling to detain the Committee, and would therefore state very briefly his objections to this clause. The clause gave power 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. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON) observed, that the clause gave the magistrates a certain discretion. It was placed in the dis 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 clause 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 oppor-cretion of the magistrates, if they contunities 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.] sidered 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. MR. ASSHETON CROSS said, he had no objection to the Motion. (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 Secretary 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 if not satisfied. Those of their Lordships 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 deterioration of the Turf in public estimation, of which there is no doubt, is mainly owing to the fact that the majority of horses are now in the possession of men who run for profit and not for sport, who care nothing for the animal horse, who cannot afford to wait for a return of their money, but who, in the language of the Manchester school, prefer a nimble ninepence to a slow shilling,' and in whose hands a wretched animal, especially if not quite so wretched as he is thought, is as valuable as one of a high class, if not more so. I am satisfied that unless the Jockey Club apply themselves vigorously to check the acknowledged abuses of the Turf, not only will there be an increasing secession of men of character and station, and an increasing accession of those who have neither, but they themselves will lose ground in public estimation, and public opinion will ere long demand and enforce a sweeping suppression of abuses by external authority." 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 other evils with which the Jockey Club had not grappled-the sanctioning play or pay betting for handicaps-one of the most fruitful sources of fraud and robbery, and last, but not least, the prevalent fashion of allowing horses to run under assumed names for their owners or co-proprietors. This last had done more to deteriorate the character of the Turf during the last few years than anything else. During the 10 years since Lord Derby wrote his letter, one solitary measure of reform was passed by the Jockey Club-and that was, he believed, rescinded again within 18 months. He alluded to Colonel Forester's excellent proposal not to allow two-year-olds to run before the 1st of May. The Jockey Club, no doubt, expected that the gentlemen who accepted the office of steward at these meetings would see that they were conducted with decorum. But reliance on these stewards was nugatory-he should like to see the gentleman who valued either his character or his watch who would attend such meetings. Assumed names were a fertile source of fraud, as the public did not know who were the real proprietors of the horses which ran. In former days the owners of racehorses had names which, in public estimation, Viscount Enfield were synonymous with honourable con- 66 "His partner's delight and the chaperon's fear, The public complained that the Jockey Club endorsed these names, if not with actual approbation, yet with toleration, for they received a fee of 25 guineas for every such name which was registered; and if his noble Friend the senior Steward of the Jockey Club felt any qualms of conscience, he might rub his hands, while he thought of this tax, and say with the old Roman financier, "Non olet." In contrast to our Turf senators, what had the French Jockey Club done? In future no horses would be allowed to compete at any of the meetings held under the Jockey Club in France that had run at a meeting organized as a private speculation, and where a special tax was levied on the list-keepers or ready-money betters. He would sum up his remarks by asking their Lordships to read the Bill a second time. He did so as a magistrate and ratepayer in the Metropolitan county. He urged its acceptance in the interests of good order, and as some slight security for the protection of the householders, who were injuriously affected by the annual recurrence many times over of these Saturnalia; but he did so especially in the interests of the old national pastime of horse-racing. Though he seldom now attended races, and scarcely ever betted, no member of the Jockey Club |