HL Deb 21 June 1841 vol 58 cc1577-82
The Marquess of Normanby

moved the third reading of the Criminal Justice in Boroughs Bill,

The Earl of Wilton

said, it was his intention to move, that the borough of Manchester should be exempted from the operation of the bill. He did so because the measure did not provide compensation for the clerk to the magistrates of Manchester, whose interests would be injuriously affected by it. That individual had for many years, performed the onerous

duties of his office in a manner highly creditable to himself, and with perfect satisfaction to the public. His case, therefore, was fairly entitled to a favourable consideration; and he (the Earl of Wilton) should feel, that he was wanting in the proper discharge of his duty if he did not endeavour to persuade their Lordships to agree to his amendment, the effects of which would be, to prevent the infliction of injustice on a meritorious individual. The responsibility did not rest with him, if his proposition were likely to affect the bill injuriously. It would rest entirely with the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack, to whom he had afforded an opportunity for making a satisfactory arrangement, and not with him. The noble Earl concluded by moving, that the following clause be added to the bill: —" Provided also, that nothing in the said act be extended to, or be construed to extend to, the borough of Manchester."

The Lord Chancellor

opposed the amendment. The claims of the individual alluded to had been rejected by the House of Commons. It would be a great hardship if other places should be deprived of the benefits to be derived under this Bill because the claims of this individual to compensation were not recognized.

The Duke of Wellington

was of opinion, that compensation should be granted to this gentleman. Care had always been taken by their Lordships that individuals should not be injured by any measure that came before them, and he hoped that they would not, on the present occasion, depart from so wise and just a principle. There never was a better case made out for compensation than this. The gentleman alluded to had served the office for twenty-five years, and had given complete satisfaction to all those with whom he had been in communication during that long period. This measure would deprive him of a great part of the emoluments of the office which he held without providing any compensation for him, and the amendment of his noble Friend was intended to prevent the perpetration of such a wrong. The amendment would not put an end to the Bill, which would still be applicable to Birmingham, Bolton, Warwick, and other places, though Manchester was excluded from its operation. Compensation was, it appeared, refused by the other House; but that was no reason why their Lordships should not express the feeling which they entertained on the subject. Compensation being the principle on which all such measures proceeded, he could not conceive why that principle had been abandoned in this instance.

Lord Brougham

admitted, that it would not only be great injustice, but the worst policy in the world, when they were making practical reforms, if they did not, when injury was likely to ensue, award a fair and just measure of compensation. But he did not think, that that principle applied to the present case. The Bill did not, it should be observed, abolish the office. It lessened the profits, but it also reduced the labours connected with it. In all other cases where compensation was granted the situation held by the individual to be compensated was permanent. Such was not the case here. This was an office held during pleasure—the pleasure of the justices. The clerk might be removed by them from the situation any day.

Lord Lyndhurst

supported the amendment. He wished their Lordships would do on this as they had done on former occasions—namely, insert what they conceived to be a proper compensation; and if the other House thought that their ideal privileges were invaded, let them reject the measure, and introduce a new one that would meet the justice of the case. Compensation had been granted to the clerk of the justices of the county of Warwick, who stood in the same situation that this gentleman did; and he did not see any reason why the latter, who was undoubtedly a meritorious officer, should not also be compensated.

The Marquess of Normanby

complained of the course that had been taken on this occasion. Their Lordships having affirmed the intention of the framers of this Bill in the other House by the second division on Friday last, he believed there was not one of their Lordships who did not understand that nothing further was to be done, with reference to the measure, beyond correcting an inaccuracy which had crept into the Bill, in consequence of the result of the first division on the same evening. Not the least notice had been given of any intention to introduce a contest on a point that had reference to what the noble and learned Lord was pleased to call the ideal privileges of the other House of Parliament. He denied that this gentleman had any just claim to com- pensation. He was clerk to the stipendiary magistrates—he was removeable at pleasure—and, was it ever known that compensation was granted to an individual thus situated? In his view of the case, this gentleman had not injustice any claim to compensation.

Lord Abinger

conceived that this was a case in which compensation ought to be granted. It was allowed with reference to the clerk of the magistrates of the county of Warwick, and could not justly be withheld in this.

The Earl of Radnor

said, it was understood, he thought, that this subject would not again be renewed and discussed, and he believed the noble Earl (Wilton) said so while on his legs. It was said, that justice should be done to the individual in question. But would it be doing justice to Birmingham and Manchester to throw out this bill? He could not see much justice in the amendment of the noble Earl.

The Earl of Warwick

stated, that when the bill was in the other House, the chairman of the Warwick quarter sessions, who was a Member of that House, proposed a clause to give compensation to the persons claiming it, in the same manner as under the Municipal Corporation Act, but to that fair and reasonable proposition the Government objected. He thought their Lordships would establish a very bad precedent by passing the bill in its present shape.

The Marquess of Salisbury

denied, that there was any understanding to the effect stated by the noble Earl (Earl Radnor) opposite. The Government endeavoured to press the bill forward, on Friday, and forced a second division upon the same amendment.

The Marquess of Normanby

repeated, that it was his impression, that the subject would not be renewed to-night, and asserted that the second division was not upon the same amendment.

The Earl of Wicklow

had voted against the amendment of his noble Friend (the Earl of Wilton) on the occasion alluded to, but he must say, that he fully expected and believed, that his noble Friend would take the course that he had taken this evening. He should again vote against his noble Friend, though not without great pain; but he did not think sufficient reasons had been shown for the rejection of the measure.

The question having been put,

The Marquess of Normanby

rose to apprise their Lordships, that the effect of agreeing to the amendment would be to alter a money clause; and without wishing to insist upon any fancied privileges of the House of Commons, he thought their Lordships would admit, that they had no power to do any such thing.

Lord Lyndhurst

said, the only object of the amendment was to-exclude Manchester from the operation of the bill, It was not a substantive or positive proposition to insert or strike out a money clause. Surely their Lordships' privileges were not to be so much restricted as to prevent them giving their decision upon such an amendment as that proposed by the noble Earl.

Their Lordships divided on the Earl of Wilton's motion. Contents 70; Not-Contents 36: Majority 34.

List of the CONTENTS,
DUKES. Wilton
Argyle Winchilsea,
Buccleugh VISCOUNTS.
Wellington. Canterbury
Downshire Gort
Exeter Hawarden
Huntly Lorton
Londonderry Strangford.
Ormond BARONS.
Salisbury Abinger
Westmeath, Ashburton
EARLS. Bayning
Aberdeen Berwick
Abingdon Bexley
Bandon Bolton.
Bathurst Boston
Beverley Delamere
Cardigan De Lisle
Charleville De Roos
Clare Douglas
Combermere Feversham
Delaware Fitzgerald
Digby Glenlyon
Eldon Heytesbury
Essex Lyndhurst
Galloway Maryborough
Glengall Prudhoe
Haddington Redesdale.
Jersey Rolle
Longford Saltoun
Manvers Sandys
Morton Skelmersdale
Mountcashel Sandes
Ripon Stuart de Rothesay
Somers Walsingham
Verulam Wharncliff.
List of the NOT-CONTENTS.
Bedford Breadalbane
Clanricarde Melbourne.
Head foot BARONS.
Lansdowne Barham
Normanby Bateman
Westminster. Belhaven
EARLS. Beaumont
Aylesford Brougham
Clarendon Calthorpe
Ilchester Colborne
Leitrim Cottenham
Morley De Freyne
Radnor Denrnan.
Stradbroke Dunally
Warwick Mostyn
Wicklow Portman
Yarborough Stafford
Zetland. Wenlock
VISCOUNTS. Wrottesley

Proviso added to the bill. Bill passed.