matters. The Government would be guilty of great inconsistency, unless it either gave the magistrates the same discretion in all cases, or else struck out the 16th clause altogether. The magistrates should either have the same discretion in all cases, or they should not be allowed to have the power in any case to say "Although, technically, an of fence has been committed, we do not think fit to award any punishment." It was in these Revenue cases, above all others, that the magistrates were continually saying "We deeply regret that we are compelled to inflict this penalty-it is by virtue of an old Statute, which gives us no option in the matter; you must apply, by memorial, to the Department for a reduction of the penalty." But the Department now came and said "Reverse the decision of the Select Committee, and give us this provision depriving magistrates of the power given them by the 16th clause in matters of much more importance." Under these circumstances, he trusted his hon. and learned Friend would take a Division on the point.

MR. DILLWYN wished to give an instance of the necessity for this discretion being exercised by the magistrates in Revenue cases. A case was once brought before him, as a magistrate, of some persons charged with smuggling. A vessel had been boarded, and a seizure made, under somewhat mitigating circumstances. Still, he had no option but to inflict fines amounting to £1,500, a most preposterous sum.

MR. TORR stated that at Liverpool the necessity for the Bench having some discretion was much felt. He was strongly in favour of the clause remaining in its present shape.

MR. MORGAN LLOYD said, that the observations of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) went a great deal further than he seemed to think. If there were, as he said, danger to the Revenue in giving the magistrates a discretion in these cases, then there was danger in allowing the magistrates to adjudicate at all on Revenue questions. He could not see why, if the magistrates were empowered to adjudicate on Revenue matters, they should not have the same discretion as was given to them in other cases to regulate the punishment. Either they should take away from them

Sir Henry James

the right to adjudicate at all, or else they should give them a certain amount of discretion as to the penalties they were to inflict. Otherwise, they were placing the magistrates in an invidious position by forcing them to inflict penalties which in their consciences they knew to be too severe. He hoped the Amendment of the Government would be withdrawn, for the only argument that had been advanced in its favour would go a great deal farther than was proposed.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT said, that the question before the Committee was a very curious one. On all punishable offences the magistrates were allowed by the Bill great latitude; but when they came to touch what were called Revenue questions, no discretion whatever was to be allowed. This was not the first time that the Revenue had been treated in this exceptional manner. He thought that it was fair and right to trust the magistrates in this matter as in others. There was no doubt that very great injustice had frequently been done in those cases, simply because the magistrates were unable to help themselves. They had been obliged to inflict the fines, which they had no power to remit or reduce. If trusted at all, the magistrates should also be trusted in this instance. After the Bill had been so carefully considered by the Select Committee, and this clause bringing Revenue questions within the magistrates' discretion had been inserted by them in the Bill, he thought the Committee should accept it.

EARL PERCY observed, that the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) had compared this clause with the 16th clause. He regretted that he did not divide the Committee upon that clause; for if he had, he should have voted with him. Speaking with very great diffidence-for he had not had very much experience in these mattershe could not but think that it would be the better course for the hon. and learned Member to raise the objection he did before to the 16th clause upon Report. It seemed to him that it would be better to raise the whole question of the desirability of vesting this discretion in the magistrates by objecting to the 16th clause rather than to take the opinion of the Committee upon a clause which was at variance with the principle of the 16th clause.

would have the effect of making some cases which were now tried at Quarter Sessions before a jury be in the future disposed of in Petty Sessions, yet, probably, a great many fresh cases would go before a jury at Quarter Sessions, and appeals would be brought in the Quarter Sessions. He might say that those gentlemen had never rendered the slightest account of the fees which they received from various sources. Moreover, in the Bill before the Committee, it was proposed to bring many cases to the Quarter Sessions which were now triable only at Assizes. If, therefore, any compensation were to be given to the Clerks of the Peace for the fees which they would lose under the Bill, it would also be necessary to ask them to disgorge the fresh profits they would make by it. To his mind, Clerks of the Peace had no kind of vested right in these fees. They had a vested interest in their offices to do all the duties that that House imposed upon Quarter Sessions -no more, and no less. If the duties were added to or diminished it was immaterial, for they had no vested interest in the business put before them.

SIR HENRY JAMES would advise his hon. and learned Friend to withdraw his proposed clause, as he would have a much better chance of bringing it up on the Report, if there were a good case in favour of the Clerks of the Peace.

MR. MORGAN LLOYD also had a clause to the same effect as that already moved, but in different terms. He was quite willing to take the course suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James), and bring his clause forward upon Report. When both clauses were printed, hon. Members would be better able to judge which clause they preferred.

MR. COLE said, he would withdraw his clause upon that occasion, as that course was considered advisable, and bring it up upon the Report. He was somewhat surprised at the opinion expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary that Clerks of the Peace were not entitled to compensation. He would point out, with reference to the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, that these gentlemen only wished to obtain compensation for what they would lose by the proposed alteration of the law. Most Clerks of the Peace were now paid by salaries, and very few were still Mr. Assheton Cross

paid by fees. That made the case of those few the stronger, and on their behalf he wished to add to the Act, which would deprive them of a portion of the remuneration they derived from fees, a clause which would, in some way, compensate them for what they lost. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. Schedule 1.

MR. PAGET moved, as an Amendment, in pages 34 and 35, in the heading, to leave out the words "children or."

MR. HICKS did not think that at that late hour they should be called upon to go into these Schedules, which proposed to extend the power of the magistrates to a much greater length than at present. He would move to report Progress.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS trusted that the Committee would go on and finish the Bill. Every question could be raised upon Report, and he did not think that any member of the magistracy would say that the Bill placed anything in their hands which they were not competent to deal with. He had been asked the object of the Bill; and he might say, briefly, that its object was to enable the magistrates to dispose of numbers of those petty cases which now went before Quarter Sessions.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT observed, that the magistrates now had the power given them of dealing with many cases summarily by penalty; and it was a question which he thought ought to be carefully considered and enunciated by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary how far magistrates ought to go in that direction. The first

line of the Schedule was somewat indefinite in giving jurisdiction to impose a penalty for the offence of simple larceny when, in the opinion of the magistrate, the value of the property stolen did not exceed 40s. He supposed that by that was meant such cases as an old woman stealing a bundle of faggots; but he considered that it should be made more explicit.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS stated that the magistrates would still have a discretion to send cases of simple larceny to trial.

Amendment agreed to; words struck out accordingly.

Bill.

Remaining Schedule agreed to, and

added to the Bill.

House resumed.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. Bill 169.]

COURTS OF JUSTICE BUILDING ACT (1865) AMENDMENT BILL.-[BILL 156.] (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson, Mr. Gerard Noel.)

SECOND READING.

Order for Second Reading read. MR. DILLWYN thought the House should have some explanation with regard to the great increase in the cost of these buildings.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON said, that the Bill had been introduced to remove certain difficulties that had been experienced in carrying out the Courts of Justice Building Act, 1865. The cost of the buildings was originally estimated at £1,500,000, and that sum was nearly paid by the money voted by Parliament at the time. Afterwards, it was to be paid to the extent of £20,000 by the estimated value of the then existing Courts; partly from a fund belonging to the Chancery suitors, and partly by a tax to be levied on the suitors using the building. Portions of the buildings were now in use, and it became necessary to levy the fees for the use of the building. The fusion of the Court of Chancery in the High Court of Justice had done away with the accuracy of the returns supplied originally, and there was some difficulty as to whether the fees that were now to be raised would have to be levied on a portion of the suitors only, or upon all using the new Courts.. The Bill was to remedy these difficulties, and especially those that had been found to arise from the Act of 1865.

MR. WHITWELL remarked, that the Bill gave power to the Lord Chancellor, by his own will, without laying the rules he proposed before Parliament, to raise money by increasing the fees of suitors. That was a very great power to be given, for anyone to have absolute

discretion over these fees without consulting Parliament; and it seemed to

VOL. CCXLVI. [THIRD SERIES.]

Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday.

BLIND AND DEAF-MUTE CHILDREN (EDUCATION) BILL.-[BILL 93.] (Mr. Wheelhouse, Sir Andrew Lusk, Mr. Scott, Mr. Isaac, Mr. Benjamin Williams.) CONSIDERATION, AS AMENDED. Order for Consideration, as amended, read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now taken into consideration."-(Mr. Wheelhouse.)

MAJOR NOLAN, who had an Amendment upon the Paper to the effect, "That it be considered upon this day six months," said, he was willing, if the House would permit him, to withdraw it, and allow the hon. and learned Memward the Bill a stage that night. ber opposite (Mr. Wheelhouse) to forward the Bill a stage that night. Amendment to the Motion stood on the MR. SPEAKER said, that as Order Book, the half-past 12 Rule absolutely precluded the Bill being taken. Question put, and negatived.

an

till To-morrow. Consideration, as amended, deferred

INCLOSURE PROVISIONAL ORDER (MATTERDALE COMMON) BILL.

On Motion of Sir MATTHEW RIDLEY, Bill to confirm the Provisional Order for the regulation of certain Lands forming part of Matterdale Common, and situated in the parish of Greystoke, in the county of Cumberland, and the Provisional Order for the Inclosure of certain Common, and situated in the same parish, in other Lands forming the remainder of the same pursuance of a Report of the Inclosure Commissioners for England and Wales, ordered to be brought in by Sir MATTHEW RIDLEY and Mr. Secretary CROSS.

Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 171.] INCLOSURE PROVISIONAL ORDER (REDMOOR

AND GOLBERDON COMMONS) BILL. On Motion of Sir MATTHEW RIDLEY, Bill to

confirm the Provisional Order for the inclosure of certain lands known as Redmoor and Golberdon Commons, situate in the parish of South Hill, in the county of Cornwall, in pursuance of England and Wales, ordered to be brought in by a Report of the Inclosure Commissioners for

Sir MATTHEW RIDLEY and Mr. Secretary CROSS. Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 172.]

I