JUSTICES OF THE PEACE BILL [H.L.]

§ THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DROGHEDA)

At the moment three Amendments have been under discussion by the Committee, Lord Llewellin's two Amendments, and Lord Rochester's Amendment to Lord Llewellin's second Amendment. It might be convenient if we dispose of the first Amendment at page 7, line 9, to leave out the word "and" (where it first occurs) in subsection (1). I understand that that is a drafting Amendment.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I accept that Amendment in order to dispose of it.

§ LORD LLEWELLIN

I am obliged.

§ LORD LLEWELLIN

I now beg formally to move the next Amendment.

§ LORD GODDARD

When the Committee adjourned last Thursday we were discussing Lord Llewellin's Amendment suggesting that in place of the proposal in the Bill, which was to deprive of their separate commissions all boroughs that were not county boroughs, should be substituted a proposal that boroughs should be deprived of their commissions only if they did not exceed 25,000 inhabitants. The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, has down an Amendment 1099 suggesting 40,000, instead of the figure of 25,000, and the Lord Chancellor has stated that he is prepared to consider a compromise, which would mean that boroughs under 50,000 inhabitants would lose their borough commissions, but that boroughs of over 10,000 inhabitants should retain their quarter sessions.

The last thing I would want to do—my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor knows this—is to take up any attitude which would add to his labours. I can well understand, and have always sympathised with, his desire to get rid of the commissions in small boroughs, but having given such thought as I am able to this proposal I am not at all convinced that the compromise, as he called it, will work. I want to be quite clear, in the first instance, as to what it is. As I understand it, the Lord Chancellor would abolish all borough commissions in places of under 50,000 inhabitants. Those boroughs with 50,000 inhabitants would retain their borough commissions, whether they have quarter sessions or not—because a good many boroughs of that size, which are also county boroughs, have no quarter sessions. Just to give three illustrations, there is Stockport with a population of 130,000, Rochdale with a population of 82,000 and Stockton-on-Tees with a population of over 65,000. They are all county boroughs, but they have no quarter sessions. I suppose, under the Lord Chancellor's proposal, they would retain their borough commissions.

But are the county boroughs to retain their county commissions whether they have 50,000 inhabitants or not, whether they have quarter sessions or not, or only if they have over 50,000? There are a good many county boroughs which are not of that amount of population, and some of them have quarter sessions, and some have not. Eastbourne, for instance, is a county borough having a borough bench but no quarter sessions. Yet Canterbury, which we know is quite a small borough, is a county borough. Chester, which is rather larger, but is under 50,000, has quarter sessions. Some, as I say, have quarter sessions, and some have not. So it seems to me that if the Lord Chancellor's proposal is to be accepted, there are a good many anomalies which will of necessity arise. Perhaps they are not very serious, but I 1100 think I have said enough to show the somewhat anomalous situation which would arise here.

Now I understand that the noble and learned Viscount suggests that the justices of those boroughs whose commissions disappear are to become justices of the county, sitting for the petty sessional division in which the borough happens to be situate. What would happen is this. Let us take an imaginary place, because I do not want to hurt the feelings of any particular borough—let us say, the borough of Barchester, situated in the Barchester division of the county of Barset. Barchester, being a small borough, will lose its separate borough commission. At the same time, there are sitting in Barchester every fortnight or every month, as the case may be, the county justices for the Barchester division of the county. Under this proposal, Barchester will become part of the county division, and the borough justices will become county justices and will sit for the county division of Barchester in the county of Barset. I cannot think that that is altogether satisfactory. It means that borough justices from these small boroughs will, for the rest of their magisterial lives—which is up to seventy-five if they live so long—become county justices. The justices of the large boroughs which retain their borough commissions will not become county justices. I think that will cause a certain amount of heart-searching, and it will always be possible for these borough justices to swamp the county justices sitting in the same division.

One of the reasons why the Lord Chancellor is anxious to abolish the small borough commissions is because of the difficulty he has experienced in finding suitable magistrates in so small a jurisdiction. Certainly I do not need to be persuaded that many of these small borough courts are exceedingly unsatisfactory. And yet the result of this proposal would be—and I commend this point most respectfully to the Lord Chancellor for consideration—that these often unsatisfactory borough justices will all become justices for the county; and if they have one of their friends up before the bench, they could, as I have said, swamp the county justices who would otherwise be sitting. It seems to me somewhat anomalous that these borough justices from small boroughs are to be made 1101 county justices—which, mark you, will enable them to sit in any division of the county they like and to take part in the county quarter sessions. Those are matters which ought to be very carefully considered before this suggestion is adopted.

Those boroughs which at present have quarter sessions and over 10,000 inhabitants are to retain their quarter sessions. The result of that will be that where there is a committal for trial to quarter sessions, the same bench will be committing either to a recorder or to a county quarter sessions, according to whether the offence is committed on one side of the line or whether it is committed on the other. That may not seem to be a very serious matter, but what I think is much more serious and much more undesirable is this. Nowadays, there are far more appeals to quarter sessions than there used to be when I was young at the Bar. I think that is principally due to the fact that there are so many offences which people can commit. Offences under the regulations are often committed by people of means who can afford to appeal, and this has led to a very large number of appeals. That is the difficulty at the present time. I have been surprised at some of the figures given to me by recorders of boroughs of the number of appeals which come before them in the course of the year. When I was young at the Bar, we looked upon an appeal to quarter sessions as "a hit of fat" which did not often come our way. Now appeals seem to be quite common. Surely, it would not be a desirable thing to have two different tribunals acting as an appeal tribunal from the same court. If this proposal were adopted, appeals by anybody who committed an offence in the borough, and who was convicted, would go to the recorder. If he committed the offence over the other side of the line, the appeal from the same court would lie to the county quarter sessions. I cannot think-that that would be a desirable state of affairs, and again I think it requires a great deal of consideration before it is adopted.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I do not quite follow what the noble Lord means when he says "by the same court." To start with, unless and until the area is altered, the Barchester borough 1102 would be the Barchester division of the county of Barset, and all appeals from that area would inevitably go, if there were a quarter sessions, to the recorder. It is only if and when the area is extended that it is treated as though it were part of the original area, and equally all appeals would go to the same court. All I contemplate is that all appeals—there should be no option—will go to the same court, subject, of course, to the rule under the Act of 1928, that if there is no divisional court being held within a month—or whatever the words are—you may send to another court.

§ LORD LLEWELLIN

That applies not to appeals—that applies to indictable offences.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR

It is the same principle exactly.

§ LORD GODDARD

I am sorry if I misunderstood the Lord Chancellor's proposal. It seems to me that it is necessary to get it absolutely clear. I understood that the Barchester commission of the peace would disappear, and that there would no longer be any Barchester justices. Barchester would become part of the county petty sessional division of the county of Barset. Therefore, the bench who would sit on offences brought before that court would be county justices. Then it is suggested that the Barchester borough justices should become eligible to sit in that division. As I understand it, the only commission they will be sitting under will be a county commission. Then, if there is a conviction before those justices—it may be a conviction for an offence which has been committed within the borough of Barchester, or it may be a conviction for an offence which has been committed in the county division surrounding Barchester—the cases would be committed to the county sessions. Otherwise, where is the recorder's jurisdiction to come in? As I understood the proposal, he was to have jurisdiction over offences which were committed within the borough of Barchester, and not within the whole Barchester division which contains partly county and partly borough. Of course, we have not had the advantage of seeing on paper the exact Amendment which the Lord Chancellor is suggesting. But this is how I see it. If there is an appeal, you would have to consider whether the 1103 offence was committed inside Barchester or whether it was committed in the Barchester division, which are two different things. That, at any rate, is as I saw it, but I may be wrong. I cannot tell any more than that until I have seen the Amendment.

On Second Reading I raised the question of the abolition of these recorders, and said that I thought the Bill went much too far and would cause an increase of work to the county quarter sessions. May I for a moment consider what is the true function of the borough quarter sessions? The true function, as I ventured to submit to the House, is to try offences which are committed within the borough and to hear appeals from the borough magistrates. If, therefore, a large number of borough quarter sessions were abolished the result would be that all those cases which the recorders try at present would have to go to the quarter sessions of the county; and that would cause a considerable increase in the number of cases with which the county has to deal. It would also probably increase very largely the number of appeals with which the appeals committee has to deal.

It is also said—and a great deal has been said about this matter during this debate—that one useful function of the borough quarter sessions is to hear cases from the county which may be sent to them. It is true that that is being done, and it is being done under the provisions of an Act of 1925 which was passed, as I believe, with a wholly different intention. Until 1925 it was not possible to commit to what I may call, for the purpose of convenience, a "foreign" court. For instance, if a case had to go to the assizes, if the offence had been committed in county A the case could not be committed to county B—I do not stop to consider the one exception under what is called Palmer's Act; that deals with a wholly exceptional circumstance. As a general rule, as I say, the case had to be committed to the court having jurisdiction for the place where the offence was committed; and to no other court. Therefore committals to quarter sessions depended entirely on whether an offence was committed within the jurisdiction of a borough or in the jurisdiction of a county. That situation led, as was 1104 well known (it was commented upon for years), to hardship in cases where people were committed for trial and either were not given or could not find bail. It was for that reason, as I venture to think any reading of the section will show, that the section in the Act of 1925 was passed. It was not passed as a county sessions relief Act.

The section itself says that the justices may commit to another convenient court for the purpose of expediting the trial or for the purpose of saving expense. It was passed not only because a prisoner cannot be kept without bail in prison, but also because it frequently happened that witnesses such as merchant seamen and other people were kept a long time in this country waiting to give evidence at the next quarter session. Therefore if it was possible to find another convenient quarter sessions to which they could be sent they were sent there. It is, as the section says, for the purpose of expediting the trial and for saving expense. I dare say that it can happen, but it must be seldom, that it saves expense to commit to a "foreign" court. Indeed, as the noble Lord who spoke so eloquently in favour of Scarborough the other day showed, it is much more likely to increase the expense if the case is sent to a "foreign" court. However that may be, I submit to your Lordships that the Act of 1925, although recently it has been frequently used as a quarter sessions relief Act and a county sessions relief Act, was never intended for that purpose.

On the other hand, in 1938 an Act was passed of which very little use has been made; and I think it is a pity that that is so. It is especially so in the case of these sessions, many of which I recognise are overworked. In 1938 an Act was passed, enabling county quarter sessions to appoint a paid chairman and, if necessary, to go outside the actual commission for the county to find a suitable chairman. I support quite as much as my noble friend Lord Lleweliin the principle of voluntary service, but remember this: recorders in the boroughs are paid. When you find quarter sessions lasting for days—often three, four or five days—it is nowadays almost impossible to find a competent chairman who, in taking it on as a matter of office, can afford to give up that amount of time for nothing. If 1105 the counties exercise their powers more freely by appointing paid chairmen—and after all, the salary would not be much; I venture to think that it would make no appreciable difference to the county rate—I believe a great deal of this trouble would be avoided.

In Middlesex, in Lancashire, and I think in one or two other counties in England, there are paid chairmen. Surely, in the overworked sessions in places such as Surrey, Kent and elsewhere, if the complaint is, "We must have cases sent to jurisdictions which were never intended to deal with them because we are so overworked here," then the answer is "Well, appoint somebody who will be in almost the same position as a county recorder." I would not have county recorders appointed, because that would mean they would be the sole judges; but they should be paid chairmen who, in consideration of a small salary, could devote the necessary time to sit with the county justices and preside.

Those are the reasons why I have come to the conclusion that I prefer the suggestion that was made by Lord Roche's Committee. Lord Roche's Committee suggested that borough commissions should be abolished if the population was below 25,000. The result of that, of course, would he that if a borough had a population of 25,000, and already had a commission and its own quarter sessions, it would retain its borough commission and its quarter sessions. Or, if the borough had no quarter sessions, it would keep its borough commission. There you would have the borough commission and the quarter sessions going hand in hand without any of these artificial distinctions.

It is said, and I recognise it, that if that proposal is adopted there would be certain hard cases. The right reverend Prelate from the diocese of Winchester, on the Second Reading made an eloquent appeal on behalf of Winchester. Well, Winchester is the ancient capital of the realm, and I have no doubt we should all be sorry to see its ancient quarter sessions abolished. But I do not know of any reform that has ever been put forward that has not trodden on somebody's toes. We always attack somebody's vested interest and cause some hardship; without that you cannot have any reform. In the case of Winchester—I mention this 1106 merely because of the speech made in support of Winchester, which has, I believe, a population of just under 25,000—

§ LORD ROCHESTER

No; 27,000.

§ LORD LLEWELLIN

It is Windsor which has under.

§ LORD GODDARD

Then it is Windsor. Windsor is a Royal Borough, and no doubt it is very fine that it should have its recorder. But if a smaller borough rises to over 25,000 population it can surely petition His Majesty again to grant a Commission.

These are the considerations which, as I say, make me prefer the proposal which has been put forward by Lord Roche. I do not believe, if I may respectfully say so, that either proposal is ideal. I believe that the only ideal way of dealing with this question, if it is possible, is to consider these boroughs on their merits. I do not suppose anybody would really desire to maintain commissions in these small boroughs of 10,000. Even in the boroughs up to 15,000 or 20.000 I do not think that the justice administered is always satisfactory. That is not meant as any reflection on the recorders, but I beg the Committee to remember that juries would be drawn from a very small panel. If you get a borough of, say, 15,000, and you eliminate the children and the young people under twenty-one, deduct the married women who are not ratepayers and the men who have exemptions from jury service, you will find that the jury panel is a very small one. I am not going to give instances, but I know several. It is very unsatisfactory to have juries drawn from a very small panel. Everybody in the town gets to know who is on the jury, and it is not difficult to visit them and find them in "places where they sing" or other places. If it is possible, I would infinitely prefer to see this matter considered by a committee which would take each borough on its merits. I agree that it would be most undesirable for the committee to hear representations from the boroughs, because every town clerk of every borough would come up; but if the matter could he decided, whether statistically or not, I believe it would be a far better solution than one provided by merely counting heads.

§ THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER

I should like to say a few words in support of the broad lines of the Lord Chief Justice's speech. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, if I understood him aright, spoke as if his proposals regarding the retention of recorders in non-county boroughs were contingent on our willingness to accept the abolition of all separate commissions of the peace in non-county boroughs where the population is under 50,000. I am sure the noble and learned Viscount cannot really think like that. I am sere that he wants to do what is right and best in both directions, and that those who still plead for consideration of the position of non-county boroughs with a population of 25,000 will not run the risk of losing, so to speak, the benefits of the suggestion made in regard to recorders. I am speaking in support of the Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, and I suggest the possibility, even the desirability, of some slight modification of it. I am not really concerned with the question of giving to non-county boroughs which have never had a separate commission of the peace a separate commission for the first time; that is a separate point. The noble Lord's Amendment, if I understand it aright, would give to every borough with a population of over 25,000 a separate commission of the peace.

§ THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER

I think the Amendment as it stands would need some modification to safeguard the position.

I would recall the fact that the Local Government Act of 1888, when reconstituting county boroughs, fixed a figure of 50,000, but made an exception in the case of those boroughs which were already county boroughs and had not a population of 50,000. So there is a precedent for the figure of 50,000, with that modification that where non-county boroughs had long enjoyed a separate commission of the peace 25,000 would be the figure. I am not much concerned with that but it does, I think, suggest a possible modification of Lord Llewellin's Amendment.

The arguments in favour of allowing those non-county boroughs which have for a long time had separate commissions of the peace to retain them are notorious 1108 and familiar. First, I would call the Committee's attention to the fact that if we accept the figure suggested it would get rid of 103 out of 171 boroughs, whereas the Lord Chancellor's figure of 50,000 would mean getting rid of 150 out of 171. I imagine that the noble and learned Viscount, in suggesting this figure, was referring to non-county boroughs which already have separate commissions of the peace. This figure of 25,000 would have one great advantage: it would help us to escape some very awkward questions, because it would in fact place non-county boroughs on exactly the same footing as county boroughs in the matter of population. We should not have to face the question why a place of 25,000, such as Winchester, was being deprived of its commission of the peace while Canterbury was to retain it. You would be taking the same figures for non-county boroughs as at present obtain for county boroughs.

Furthermore, the Roche Committee favoured the figure of 25,000. I am thinking in terms of half-a-dozen boroughs with the life and work of which I am familiar, and trying to apply the canons of the Roche Committee to these examples. What troubles me is that I cannot see any evidence that the dangers to which the Lord Chief Justice has referred, and which are real in regard to small boroughs, cease to apply only at the level of 50,000 and do not much weaken when the population is as large as 25,000. I suggest that there is something unnecessarily arbitrary about the figure of 50,000 applying to a borough desiring to retain a separate commission of the peace which in effect it has had, in more than one case, for a thousand years.

I have been at some pains to try to ascertain the opinions of the county authorities, and while I find, as I expected, a fairly widespread fear and suspicion about the administration of justice in small boroughs I did not find in the case of Winchester, for example, any real desire on the part of the county authorities to see Winchester lose its separate commission. I know that it is improper to refer overmuch to one particular place, and I ask the Committee to believe that I am thinking not merely in terms of one particular place. I refer to Winchester simply as an illustration of the general principle for which I am pleading. The Lord Chancellor says in effect "What 1109 difference would it make—and would you indeed not have a higher status?" But these justices do not want a higher status. They say "We have carried on our duties pretty well for centuries. Have we not the right to be given a clear reason why we should be swept out of existence?" The only answer seems to be that it must be done to ease the pressure of the enormous burdens resting on the Lord Chancellor and his Department.

The Lord Chancellor may forgive me for reminding him that this debate reminds one strangely of an even more familiar debate. As Abraham might have said: "Peradventure there be fifty thousand righteous in the city: wilt thou not spare the place for fifty thousand righteous that are therein?" The Lord Chancellor will remember that that debate concluded (I am not using the precise words of the quotation): "Oh, let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak but this once. Peradventure twenty-five thousand will be found there. Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?"

§ EARL WAVELL

I apologise for again intervening in what is a legal matter. I shall keep your Lordships for only a few moments. I want to put forward a special plea for the City of Winchester. It is our oldest capital, the capital of King Alfred, who first made us into a nation and first gave us a navy. It has had its own magistrates for, I believe, something over a thousand years. It seems to me that it would be a sin against all tradition if Winchester were now deprived of that privilege simply because she has as a city, so to speak, kept her figure and not indulged in a middle-age spread. She may be penalised merely because of a lack of philoprogenetiveness—I believe that is the correct legal term for an excess of population.

I should like to point out, too, that there is in Winchester for the city magistrates an extremely intellectual level of population. You have the Cathedral, the College and, I understand, a very large number of retired officers of high rank—admirals, generals and air marshals—and a very high class of tradesman. So that Winchester has always had a very strong court of magistrates and is extremely anxious to retain this ancient privilege. Therefore, I do put a 1110 special plea before the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor that Winchester shall be allowed to retain those privileges. I hope that the conclusions of Lord Roche's Committee will be observed. It seems to me that, after having appointed such a strong Committee, to ignore what they recommended would be, with all due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Roche, and to the Lord Chancellor, somewhat like buying a dog and then biting a policeman yourself. That is all I have to say. I hope that this Amendment will be carried, and that Winchester, which has a population of about 26,000, will be able to retain its borough court.

§ LORD TEMPLEMORE

As High Steward of the City of Winchester may I add my voice to what has been said by the right reverend Prelate and by the noble and gallant Field-Marshal who has just sat down? I have no further arguments to adduce, but I have just one point to make. In a speech the other day, one of the last he made in the debate last Thursday, the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor said he hoped that Devizes would keep its commission.

§ SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS

Its recorder.

§ LORD TEMPLEMORE

I understood that it was the King's commission. But Devizes has a population of only 7,000, whereas Winchester has 25,000. I should like to add my plea that the historic City of Winchester shall keep its commission and its recorder.

§ LORD SCHUSTER

I am bound by every sentiment of piety to defend Winchester. I have been completely convinced by the arguments adduced by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and by the noble Lord, Lord Calverley, who always defends Cambridge. But I do not rise to speak on behalf of any particular town; nor do I think that one should really rise in the defence of what may happen to any particular town. There are two reasons, I think—I must not pledge my colleagues—why the Roche Committee made the recommendation which they did. One was this: that there is a certain level of population—though no person can dogmatically say what it is—at which it is difficult to find for any town a good advisory committee. There are not enough people who can be gathered together to make an advisory 1111 committee in which the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor can have trust. I do not want to say anything unkind about these towns, because no doubt people there have done their duty for many years and have served loyally; but I am talking of practical difficulties that have been encountered. It is not easy—in fact, it is very difficult—ito find at a certain level enough justices in whom the Lord Chancellor can have confidence.

Therefore I think the first object—I repeat, I must not pledge my colleagues—which the Roche Committee had was to try to fix a level at which it might reasonably be supposed that a good advisory committee could be got together and where there was sufficient recruiting ground for the bench itself. I do not want to say dogmatically that 25,000 is the right number; no human being can fix upon a particular number and say that it is the right one. All I can say is that we did the best we could. Looking at all the circumstances before us, listening to all the evidence and being completely impartial and not warped in any way by any kind of political outlook or other dark design, we took the figure of 25,000.

The second object was quite different—not antagonistic to the first, but quite different. We hoped and I am still hoping—that in whatever Bill followed on our investigations there would be an enhancement of the position of the justices' clerk. We wanted to see that, if possible, he would have enough work to justify the payment of an inclusive salary, so that he might not be compelled to have regard to private practice, any more than the registrars of many county courts. Again, I do not wish to be disrespectful to them, for they contain many of my friends, but we hoped that these small commission districts would be merged in the body of the county. It is true that we hoped that the magistrates on the commissions for the boroughs would become magistrates of the county, but we did not contemplate—at least, I did not, and I do not think that any of my colleagues did—that there would be a line drawn round the towns, and that that would form the petty sessional division of wherever it was.

My noble friend Lord Llewellin and I, who take a deep interest in the matter, 1112 have been talking a great deal about the county of Dorset. Let me for a moment take that county, which I know better than any other. In the town of Dorchester there sit from time to time two separate bodies—the justices of the peace for the borough of Dorchester and the justices of the peace for the petty sessional division of Dorchester. Neither of those two bodies has enough to do. It seems ridiculous that those two separate bodies should sit there, each employing a clerk, with, so far as the county sessions are concerned, people coming considerable distances, because the Dorchester petty sessional division is pretty large. I have often sat at Dorchester for two or three cases, and I have travelled eight or nine miles for the purpose of hearing them. What we contemplated was not that a line would be drawn round Dorchester—that is where I think there a misunderstanding arose between my noble and learned friend and myself—but that in future the county petty sessional division of Dorchester should include the city of Dorchester and the surrounding country. Therefore, the evils which my noble friend referred to at once occur: there is the ambidextrous appeal. I hope I have made myself clear. The subject is technical and perhaps sounds very dull. I am not quite certain which Amendment we are discussing at the moment.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR

May I help the noble Lord? At the moment we are having a general discussion in order that between now and Report stage I may try to see whether it is possible to get some kind of agreement on this point. If we cannot hammer out some sort of agreement then we have not the slightest chance of getting this Bill through during this Parliament.

§ LORD SCHUSTER

I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount. I can now be as discursive as I like over the whole subject. One of the real issues before us is, where is the line to be drawn? I think we are all agreed that the demarcation of the county borough will not do, and that we must fix some population limit or else refer the matter to the Committee my noble friend has suggested. For that population limit Lord Rochester suggested 40,000. I do not wish to impute improper motives to him, because his motive was clear—namely, to save his own town of 1113 Rochester, a very laudable and desirable thing to do. I want to see Rochester saved; I want to see Cambridge saved; and I also want to see Scarborough saved. But if the level is lowered to 25,000, then, as I understand it (I may have the figures wrong) there are only four additional towns which will be saved—namely, Winchester, Hereford, Kings Lynn and Deal. I am arguing in favour of the figure of 25,000, and I am taking the figures given by the Lord Chancellor. I do not want to say anything in praise of any one of those four towns. I have already told the Committee that I have a prejudice in favour of Winchester; a town which I wish to see in every way exalted and maintained.

What I would suggest to the Committee in regard to the small recorderships—I hope the Lord Chancellor will believe that I am saying this in no grudging spirit, for I am sure he is trying to meet us—is that the abolition of the smaller recorderships may be regarded as an end in itself. It is impossible to say where the axe should fall, but I do not believe that the smaller recorder's court is a good court, or can be a good court. It the first place, as my noble friend has already pointed out, the panel of jurors must be very small; and in the second place it is obviously a great waste that a recorder should be sitting for 3,000, 4,000 or, as I think, 10,000 or an even greaser number of persons. I am throwing myself on the mercy of the Committee here; I can express only my own view, and I do not want to commit my noble friends, but I think the members of be Roche Committee thought that the same argument applied as regards boroughs, and that 25,000 was the appropriate figure both for the recorder and for the borough commission. I cannot tell you why. Every noble Lord must look at the matter from his own experience. It is absurd to hold a court before which there come very few charges. It is bad in every way. Neither the presiding officer nor those who sit with him gain sufficiently in experience to "keep their hands in."

I do not want to argue in favour of large and bloated courts. I certainly do not want to argue in favour of throwing on to the quarter sessions, either east or west, the great number of prisoners who are tried in the big Kentish towns. I do suggest, however, that the recorder 1114 of the small town does not serve any useful purpose, and that in fact the recorder of a small town and his court are an anomaly and a nuisance and, I think, a denigration of justice. I think I can go further than that. We were aiming at concentration and economy. Consider the character of the four towns which I have taken, whose population, if I am correct, falls between 25,000 and 40,000. As we have heard from the right reverend Prelate—and I cannot put it nearly so well as he or the noble and gallant Earl, Lord Wavell—it is ridiculous to say that from the 27,000 inhabitants of Winchester you cannot get a good advisory committee and a good bench. I do not know so much about Hereford because I have had no connection with the place; but it seems ridiculous to say that among the 33,000 inhabitants of Hereford you cannot get a good advisory committee and a good bench. About Kings Lynn I know nothing; about Deal I know too much and I prefer to be silent on that subject. But again as far as their population, history and tradition are concerned—

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The noble Lord seems to be under a misapprehension. There are 27 boroughs with populations of between 25,000 and 40,000 which have commissions of the peace.

§ THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER

The noble Lord has taken from Hansard the figures for boroughs which have both separate commissions of the peace and quarter sessions.

§ LORD SCHUSTER

That is what I am saying. I do not know which are the other 27 boroughs. Here is the document with which the noble and learned Viscount furnished me, and I have done the best I can with it. I admit that my powers both of reading and of expression are inferior, but at the same time I do not know what other towns there are. But be it so. Suppose there are 27. I take my four towns, not because I have a special interest in any of them but because they are symptomatic of the situation. One can judge the towns of 25,000 by those four, but if the noble and learned Viscount adds others I shall be glad to deal with them.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR

There are a large number of them. I am not 1115 talking about boroughs which have their own quarter sessions; I am talking about those boroughs which have separate commissions of the peace. I counted them rapidly. By accepting the figure of 50,000, we abolish 49 more separate Commissions of the Peace than if we accept 25,000 only. If we accept 40,000, we abolish 27 more than if we accept 25,000 only. It is quite true that between the 40,000 and the 25,000 there are only five with separate quarter sessions, and in between 40,000 and 50,000 there are seven more with separate quarter sessions. The difference between 25,000 and 50,000 is, as I have indicated a very substantial one.

§ LORD SCHUSTER

I am sorry if I misled the Committee. I was talking about boroughs with quanter sessions; that is to say boroughs that have separate commissions of the peace and quarter sessions. I am arguing in regard only to the quarter session boroughs which have separate commissions of the peace. I have nothing to add to that; I have really talked too long. I do want it to be clearly understood in regard to the objects of the Roche Committee, however, that if when the borough has lost its separate commission it alone becomes a petty sessional division of the county, the very object at which we were aiming disappears, and exactly the same thing will happen as happened before.

Take my own borough of Dorchester, of which I was speaking a few moments ago—it is Dorchester not Barchester. There again exactly the same thing will happen. You will have the Dorchester justices for the petty sessional division of the county sitting in Dorchester and the justices for the borough petty sessional division sitting in Dorchester. Neither group will have enough to do, and they will have two separate clerks, neither of them, it may be, adequately remunerated for his professional skill. In short, we shall have all the evils and troubles which we were aiming to end. I do not think I need argue the matter further.

§ VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD

I do not propose to take up more than two or three minutes of the time of the Committee after the interesting discussion which we have had. We are, however, 1116 in some difficulty. My noble friend Lord Llewellin has put down an Amendment on the lines of the recommendations of the Roche Committee. The Lord Chancellor has sprung upon us a totally new proposal, the effect of which would be to change the conditions both for the commissions of the peace and for the recorderships. I hope that in the light of this discussion he will see fit to take very carefully into account what has been said upon the subject and will recognise that there is great opposition, at any rate in some quarters, to certain parts of the proposal which he has made. I am more interested in the question of the recorder-ships than I am in the commissions of the peace. I see that in these small boroughs there is a great deal of objection to having an advisory committee, and it may be difficult to find enough justices for the commission. I admit, none the less, that I think the greater objection is to be raised against the small recorderships. In that connection there is the problem of finding a jury in one of these minute places, where everyone knows everyone else's affairs.

Another objection, which I do not think has been mentioned so far in this afternoon's debate, is that the session is apt to be very short and perfunctory. A recorder goes down to one of these small places, arriving at perhaps eleven o'clock in the morning, and, possibly, he has in view the catching of a train to take him away again at about twelve-thirty. He has, it may be, one case to hear. I believe that one of the outstanding merits of our great assizes is that there is a measure of time during which, if necessary, passing of sentence in a case can be postponed in order that further inquiry may be made. As a rule, assizes last at least two or three days, and I believe that at these great assizes there is a better chance of justice being done and, what is very important in these days of complicated sentences, of the right sentences being imposed. That being so, I object to the Lord Chancellor's proposal which, as I understand it, would leave recorder-ships in any place that has a population of over 10,000. I think that that figure is much too small. I would have preferred to keep the simple line—it is of course open to detailed objections—of the Roche Committee, that there should 1117 be the same principle for both. If the Lord Chancellor says there is a particular instance in which a recorder of a small borough is doing essential work, I should be prepared to give him or the Committee a certain elasticity of decision.

I was impressed by what the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, said earlier about the possibility of more detailed inquiry into these difficult cases, but speaking generally I wish to see these small recorderships go. I believe that it will be better administratively that they should, and I believe that it will be better in the interests of justice as a whole. On that account I prefer the rough and ready—but perhaps I underrate it in saying rough and ready, so I will say the broad proposition of the Roche Committee that 25,000 should be the population test. As I say, I am perfectly prepared to accept the Lord Chief Justice's suggestion that there might be opportunity for inquiry, in whatever form he and the Lord Chancellor think fit, into some of the difficulties. I therefore hope the Lord Chancellor will not press his proposal to-day, and that we shall accept Lord Llewellin's proposal embodying the recommendations of the Roche Committee. Then if there are modifications to be made upon it the Lord Chancellor can make them when we come to toe Report stage.

§ LORD CALVERLEY

I wish to express my agreement with the observations which have just been made by the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood. I find that in the north there is very little, excitement or distress with regard to the idea that the small boroughs shall be merged into the county, now that we have been assured that such boroughs will be able to hold their own petty sessional courts, which of course have their own important duties to perform. But I do wish to urge upon the Lord Chancellor that there should be a revision in relation to the matter of the recorders, especially in connection with some of the small and, in certain instances, ancient boroughs.

I have the privilege of being chairman of one of our large prisons, and in the course of my duties as a visiting magistrate I came across a really distressing case. I always, if I may so put it, make a bee-line to the quarters of the juvenile 1118 prisoners, in order to ascertain why they are kept in custody. On the occasion of a visit some three or four weeks after a previous one I found that a boy was still detained. I asked the Governor the reason for his detention and he told me that the boy was waiting for the recorder to sit at the quarter sessions, and the recorder was waiting until he got some more cases. The boy had not been granted bail, and there was good reason for that, I gathered. I took up the case with the Home Office because, in my simplicity, I thought that quarter sessions were held four times a year. Here, in my opinion, is a case where this recordership in Yorkshire should be abolished, and this borough for quarter sessions purposes should be merged with the West Riding of Yorkshire. There, sessions are regularly held, and less hardship is caused, because the modern magistrate does not like to keep anyone in prison to await trial if he can avoid it, especially if the person concerned is a boy of seventeen, eighteen or nineteen years of age.

Therefore I think it would be in accordance with the consensus of opinion of those who have studied the problem that, without fear or favour, some of these ancient recorderships should be decapitated and the areas merged. The recorder could be given a job, perhaps, as chairman of quarter sessions. My noble friend Lord Merthyr, who knows all these things, tells me there are fifty-two counties in England and Wales, and when we held our commission we found that there were only about eight or nine paid chairmen. I understand that there are now about a dozen. But there are other counties which could well dispense with the unpaid chairman and have a paid chairman who should be a barrister of at least seven or ten years standing. Thus, I suggest, there would be jobs open for "the boys." There would be places where the trained lawyer could practise his talent. I hope the noble and learned Viscount, like Pharaoh, will harden his heart and get rid of some of these quarter sessions and recorders which are neither good nor middling.

§ LORD ROCHE

I am very sensible of the weight of what the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has said about time in this matter. Time is the essence of this Bill, which I, for one, 1119 should like to see passed. Let me make two observations. I am not sure whether the noble and learned Viscount contemplates dividing on this Amendment or leaving the matter at large until Report Stage. I am certain, however, that my Committee never contemplated setting up separate commissions for any boroughs over 25,000 or any such figure; they were dealing merely with retaining commissions. I think the right reverend Prelate was perfectly right on this point, and I would be sorry to see any Amendment passed which would result, as I think would be the effect of passing the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, in separate commissions being set up.

Is the solution not this: that the figure 50,000 be retained as the ruling figure, yet boroughs of 25,000 or over which already have commissions and quarter sessions should retain both. That would cover the five boroughs about which I understand the noble Lord, Lord Schuster, is speaking. I have not maturely considered that course, but I think it would content me, and it would be in line with what the Committee over which I had the honour to preside, intended. 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 he thought there was an important exception.

I confess that I do not regard as lightly as some noble Lords, including I think, the Lord Chief Justice, the question of the relief of the county quarter sessions. Having a paid chairman would not overcome all difficulties, because we have to have other magistrates there. I put more faith in laymen than in lawyers appointed either as "jobs for the boys" or in any other way. I put great faith in sensible laymen, all of whom are deeply engaged in county or other business and probably unable to attend county quarter sessions for a much longer time than they do now. Coming back to my proposal, which I think is in line with what the right reverend Prelate suggested, while boroughs such as Winchester and Rochester should retain both their separate commissions and recorders the line might otherwise be drawn at 40,000 or 50,000.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, 1120 who has made a most helpful contribution to our discussion. I want to find a more or less agreed solution, because unless we get that, we have not a hope of getting this Bill through. It seems to me that what the noble Lord has said holds out hope of an agreed solution. But I do not think the Amendment in the form in which we have it here is satisfactory, for the reasons he gave. I think the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, will agree that it is a question of retaining commissions and not of constituting new commissions. I do not want to go into any controversy about Winchester, or about any of the other boroughs affected. My only object in this matter is to try to secure the best administration of justice. From my experience I am satisfied that I ought to do everything I can to abolish these separate commissions. I believe that I shall be assisting the administration of justice by doing so, and I believe that those who have had experience of my office would agree that we could to a large extent get rid of separate commissions by adopting the figure of 50,000.

I should like to have the figure of 50.000. It is not only that sometimes I have difficulty in constituting a satisfactory advisory committee but I am conscious of the difficulties in commissions under that figure. They are too small; the people know too much about each other; and generally things are not satisfactory. Anybody who has had my experience knows that to be true. But I must be content with what I can get, and if I can get what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roche, has suggested. I would have 50.000 as my preliminary figure while retaining those boroughs of 25,000 population which have already separate commissions and recorders. I do not like that so much as the proposal in the Bill; I do not think it makes for the administration of justice so well as the proposal in the Bill. But I would rather have that with general good will and consent than any abstract prospect which I think more ideal. I should like to ask the noble Lord Lord Llewellin, to withdraw his Amendment now, with the agreement of the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and to leave the matter completely open. Between now and the next stage of the Bill I will endeavour to introduce a clause on the lines suggested by the noble Lord, Lord 1121 Roche, which I believe will receive a large measure of the approval of your Lordships.

§ LORD LLEWELLIN

I agree with the noble and learned Viscount on two points—namely, that if we are not in substantial agreement there is not much chance of this measure being passed, and the Bill will not go through another place without a large number of boroughs properly pressing their Members to make it possible for them to keep their recorders, and, secondly, that my Amendment is not aptly drafted. The reason for that is that I did not mean to create any new commissions of the peace. It seems to me that the question is where we are to draw the line, and whether we ought not to draw two lines, one for the abolition of the separate commissions of the peace and another for the abolition of the recorderships. I think this Bill would pass through more easily if we had two lines, as proposed in the compromise suggestion of the noble and learned Viscount.

The difference between a limit of 25,000 and one of 50,000 is that if the 25,000 is adopted, forty-nine additional commissions of peace remain. I cannot see why any justice at present on the rota of borough justices should feel aggrieved that his commission is absorbed in the larger county commission, when he has the wider rights that a county justice has of sitting on county quarter sessions and will still sit in his same petty sessional court-house. The right reverend Prelate shakes his head, but I see no reason why they should not sit in the same court-house, nor why, unless the magistrates' courts committee of Hampshire suggested a new boundary for the petty sessional division of Winchester, they should not have exactly the same jurisdiction. If they did suggest an alteration, it would be only to include some of the countryside in the immediate neighbourhood of the borough of Winchester, so that they would have a larger jurisdiction.

That is the way I see it working, so far as commissions of the peace are concerned. I realise that some of the smaller ones ought to go, and I do not see that anybody has any great grievance if they go to a considerably larger extent than my Amendment suggests. It is essential, however, if we preserve the courts of quarter session, to lay down the extent of the recorder's jurisdiction. That is the 1122 sort of provision a layman cannot easily draft; it must be done by the experts in the Parliamentary draftsman's office. I do not in the least see why these quarter sessions should not have appeals from the borough, or, if the extent of its petty sessional division is extended, from the wider area. I could not follow the Lord Chief Justice when he said he thought one petty sessional court would have one appeal going to the recorder and another to the county quarter sessions. As I understand it, the drafting would be that any appeal from the petty sessional division that included the old borough, or was the old borough, should go to the recorder; and, although the magistrates are county justices, the appeals from that petty sessional division will still continue to go to the recorder. I see no difficulty in that, so long as we are not wedded to the old form of only a separate commission having appeals to a recorder. We can move with the times if we want to keep, as I do, more of these recorders.

If we were to accept the Lord Chancellor's original suggestion and retain recorders for all boroughs of 10,000 population we should be retaining—and I think it would be a good thing—an additional twenty-five recorders. If we raise the population limit to 50,000 quite a number of these recorders will go, and from such political knowledge that I have, I am certain that it will be far more difficult to get this measure through another place, because the real problem will be how to keep the recorders in the various county towns. I should have thought we were much better striking the line where the Lord Chancellor struck it when he originally made this offer to get rid of these separate commissions—that has many advantages—and at the same time retain as many recorders as we can. Abolish the very small ones, but keep as many recorderships as we can, first, because it relieves pressure on the county quarter sessions, and, secondly, because they are a good trial ground for an eventual Judge of the King's Bench Division.

I very much agreed with my noble and learned friend Lord Roche that it is not only the chairmen who have to be considered, but all the magistrates who sit with them; they are a very important part of the court, and anybody who has sat as chairman or deputy chairman of 1123 quarter sessions knows what a relief it is to have other magistrates in to discuss the sentence and not to have to do it entirely on one's own. Had it been left to me I should have clinched the matter by accepting the Lord Chancellor's suggestion straight away. We should then have got rid of a lot of these tiny commissions of the peace, and at the same time have kept these valuable men, the recorders of the different boroughs. I hope that when it comes to the Report stage we shall have something done on that line. What consoled me in the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Roche was that it seemed to me to accept the position that two lines could be drawn, one for recorders and the other for commissions of the peace. In the circumstances, that is what I think would be the sensible thing to do. Perhaps Lord Rochester will agree not to move his Amendment to my Amendment, which I shall then be happy to withdraw. We will then see what we can put down on the next stage of the measure.

§ LORD GODDARD

If Lord Roche's proposal is that all boroughs under 50,000 which have not their own quarter sessions boroughs should lose their commission of the peace, but that boroughs of 25,000 with quarter sessions should retain their commission and recorder (I believe that was Lord Roche's suggestion) I would gladly accept that and support it.

§ LORD ROCHESTER

I am, of course, in your Lordships' hands. I was fully in favour of Lord Roche's Committee's recommendation of 25,000 both for the commission and for the recorders. It was only because my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, at the commencement of his speech in the debate on Thursday, in reply to an Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, said in terms that his irreducible minimum was 50,000 that I jumped in with an Amendment of 40,000, in order to save those boroughs between 40,000 and 50,000.

§ LORD LLEWELLIN

One borough.

§ LORD ROCHESTER

I was quite frank with your Lordships; my figure would have included Rochester.

§ VISCOUNT SWINTON

And excluded everything else!

§ LORD ROCHESTER

On the contrary. It would also include Scarborough, on which we heard such a delightful speech from the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, on Thursday. I feel that the suggestion of my noble and learned friend Lord Roche is an admirable one. It would meet my position entirely if Lord Llewellin's Amendments were withdrawn and I did not move mine: in order, in the words of the Lord Chancellor, that the whole matter can be gone into to see if we cannot hammer out a solution which will commend itself to everyone. I therefore agree not to move my Amendment to Lord Llewellin's Amendment.

§ VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD

After the last two or three speeches I am not sure what is the position with regard to recorders. Has the Lord Chancellor a completely open mind as to what should be the number below which recorderships should be abolished? My noble friend Lord Llewellin has just pressed very strongly that the number should be 10,000. Some of us think it should be much higher. I should not like this discussion to end without having the position clear. Is the Lord Chancellor taking back his proposal? Is my noble friend Lord Llewellin withdrawing his Amendment, and the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, agreeing not to move his Amendment to that Amendment on the understanding that, both with the commissions of the peace and the recorderships, the position is open, and that the Lord Chancellor will take into account the very strong arguments that have been put forward by the Lord Chief Justice and others against these small recorder-ships?

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I do not want to tie myself at the present time. I want to negotiate to bring about the largest possible measure of agreement. I am sure we all understand Lord Roche's proposal. Under his proposal, of course, the boroughs under 50.000 which have not recorders would lose their separate commission of the peace. But, if I understood him, boroughs which have recorders would retain both their commission of the peace and also their quarter sessions—that is under what the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, calls the one-line proposal, and not the two lines. The position with regard to recorders is this: 1125 A town of under 25,000 would lose its recorder, unless possibly I had some latitude in the matter, so that if there were particular recorders who seemed to me to be playing a useful part in the administration of justice in the county I might be able to reprieve them, either alone or after reference to some committee. But everyone will realise that in my negotiations I do not want to tie myself by any obligation. What I want to do is to bring about an agreement on this.

§ LORD ROCHESTER

It is on that general understanding that I will not move my Amendment.

§ LORD LLEWELLIN

I was prepared to accept the limit of 50,000 for the commissions of the peace only so long as we had recorders above 10,000. I am still convinced that I am right, and I would like to say, whatever my noble friend Lord Templewood says, that I adhere to a at bargain which I have made across the floor of the House with the noble and learned Viscount. That being understood by the Committee, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

§ THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

The Bill may read now a little oddly, since we have deleted "and," but that can be put right on Report stage.

§ LORD GODDARD

I hope your Lordships will leave the City of London alone. I understand that my noble friend Lord Merthyr is suggesting that in the City there should not even be stipendiaries or metropolitan police magistrates; it appears that it is to be left to the justices. Apart from that, however, I believe that there are no petty sessional courts in this country which are so satisfactorily run and managed as the courts in the City of London. During the time that I have been a Judge—which is now seventeen or eighteen years—I have never known a special case taken from the City of London. The fact is that the City does not have a large number of serious cases to decide, as do the metropolitan magistrates; there are not the murders, the thefts, and so forth. There are some frauds, but most, I think, are quite ordinary—what I would call police cases. I see no reason at all for impinging upon what I think has been carried out with universal approbation and has worked thoroughly well for years and years. The two police courts in the City of London, the Lord Mayor sitting at the Mansion House for one part of the City, and the Aldermen sitting at the Guildhall for the other, have never given the King's Bench Division the smallest trouble. I cannot remember a single appeal from them, and 1128 I hope your Lordships will leave the City of London alone.

§ LORD MERTHYR

May I, before anybody else speaks, correct one misapprehension? I am not advocating that laymen should sit in the City. I would like to make the City the same as the County.

§ LORD GODDARD

But the county justices are lay justices. The Amendment which the noble Lord has moved does not propose to give the metropolitan police magistrates jurisdiction over the City. But whether he did or did not, my objection to it is the same: I say that the Aldermen have done well for years and years and are still doing well. Let us leave well alone.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR

One often thinks that we are not a very logical people and I quite agree. Very often we apply not a test of logic but the simple question: "Does this, that, or the other institution work well?" After all, my Lords, take my own position as Lord Chancellor: can you conceive anything more utterly illogical than the position of Lord Chancellor? If anybody were starting anew and setting out a new system, would he in his right senses invent such a thing as the Lord Chancellor? Yet the Lord Chancellor has not so far been abolished, though he may be soon—I do not know. The question which we apply to ourselves is not "Is it logical?" but "Does it work well?" On the whole, I think that the system is one which works well.

I concede at once to the noble Lord that logically he has everything on his side, and the system in the City of London is an anomaly. But I agree entirely with the Lord Chief Justice. In my experience, this thing works, and it works very well. Now, why should I go and uproot a system which is working very well in order to satisfy Lord Merthyr's sense of logic? I know that the City are proud of this anomaly. They like their ancient traditions, am I bound to say that this particular tradition is certainly not one which they have in any way abused. I think that if we try to aim at logic here we shall do an ill service to the administration of justice in the City of London. I should advise your Lordships to leave the City of London as the Lord Chief Justice and, I think, anybody really experienced in the working of the law would leave it, entirely alone.

§ LORD MERTHYR

I do not propose to press this Amendment further, but may I say two things in connection with it? The fact that this system works well—the system being a single magistrate sitting alone—is an argument which I shall take leave to bring up in another connection. I think that stipendiaries do work well when sitting alone. That is why I want this system to be instituted in the City of London. When other people say that they do not work well I must beg leave to reserve this argument for them. But meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I think the noble Lord has made out his case here and I am prepared to accept his Amendment.

§ LORD LLEWELLIN

I am much obliged to the Lord Chancellor. I understand it will mean quite a number of consequential Amendments, but those, of course, will be put down on the Report stage.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am sorry that the noble Lord was troubled over this subsection. It is not really very difficult. The point of it is this. There 1131 are a large number of county boroughs—Darlington. Dewsbury, Eastbourne, East Ham, Newport, South Shields, Wakefield, and West Hartlepool—which are county boroughs but have not their own quarter sessions. There are twenty-one of them in all. Of course, the appeals from the magistrates there have to go to the quarter sessions for the county, and for that purpose the county borough has to be treated as though it were part of the county. The only object of this clause is to deal with that point which otherwise would be left in the air and there could be no appeal. If they have no quarter sessions of their own, and unless they are treated as part of the county, there will be no available quarter sessions for them. The noble Lord I think will understand that explanation.

§ LORD MERTHYR

I am much obliged. I do understand it now, though I confess I did not before.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR

If the Committee agree we might take together this and the next Amendment—that to page 7, line 31. They are drafting Amendments. There are county boroughs without quarter sessions which form part of more than one county—for example Stockport, which is partly in Lancashire and partly in Cheshire. Thus in Stockport at present the Lancashire quarter sessions have jurisdiction over one part of the borough and Cheshire quarter sessions over the other part of the borough. The effect of the Amendments is to apply the provisions of the subsection to each part of such a county borough, so as to relate it to the appropriate county for the purpose of the exercise of the quarter sessions jurisdiction of the county. I beg to move.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This Amendment also, as I have indicated, is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I have great sympa