SECOND READING. (Hansard, 13 July 1864)

§ MR. WHALLEY
, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, its main object was to be found in the first clause, which provided that— In all cases where any person shall be charged with any offence punishable by summary conviction before Justices of the peace or a magistrate, the person so charged and his wife or her husband, as the case may be, shall be competent to give evidence on the hearing of such charge. He had ventured to propose that change in the law because he knew that the late Attorney General had contemplated the introduction of a clause to a similar effect in a Bill of a wider character. The amendment of the law he proposed was in conformity with the tendency of law reforms in recent times. As the evidence of parties was admissible in civil causes, there could be no objection to extend the practice to petty offences. Cases sometimes occurred in which the police exceeded their duties, and it was only right that the parties accused should be allowed to state facts. Another clause in the Bill provided that where the charge should consist wholly or mainly in annoyance to the public or to individuals, other evidence than that of the police should be adduced.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
thought this was a Bill which the House could not sanction. The first clause proposed a fundamental alteration in the law of evidence by permitting criminals to give evidence. If criminals were allowed to give evidence on their own behalf, they must be liable to be cross-examined against themselves. Then if it was enacted that a criminal might give evidence, the practical effect would be that he must give evidence, or his abstaining from doing so would be construed in his disfavour. The second section was very remarkable. It was that— In cases where any persons shall be charged with any offence which consists wholly or mainly in the annoyance occasioned to the public or to individuals. He would like to know what annoyance to an individual meant. If a man was robbed of his money, that would be an annoyance, and so again if he were as- 1434 saulted. The clause went on to provide that, in such cases, It shall be necessary to adduce evidence to the satisfaction of the magistrate other than that of the police or constable by whom any person shall be apprehended of such annoyance having been occasioned. By that provision a gang might set upon a policeman alone and nearly kill him, and there would be no evidence against them. Then there was a clause giving to policemen power to determine what sum of money should be deposited with them by a prisoner to insure the appearance of the latter to answer a charge. That provision was objectionable. He thought he had said enough to show that the Bill was one which ought not to be adopted. He would, therefore, move that it be read a second time on that day three months.

§ MR. HADFIELD
thought the Bill was an excellent one, and only carried out a principle which was already acted upon in civil causes.

§ MR. WHALLEY
thought the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General had not fairly represented the nature of the Bill; but in deference to the general feelings of the House he would not trouble them to divide.