SECOND READING. (Hansard, 21 June 1860)

LORD BROUGHAM

, in moving the second reading of the Bill, said his attention had been principally directed to the subject by numerous and strong representations made to him by different persons, especially by chaplains of prisons, from 150 of whom he had received communications, showing the expediency of relieving those unfortunate persons who were placed under their spiritual care, from having either to plead "not guilty" or "guilty" to 758 the indictment charging them with offences. All lawyers knew that the plea of "not guilty" meant legally nothing more than "I wish to be tried." But persons unacquainted with the forms required by law were often in a dilemma upon that very point—more especially those who were not sufficiently hardened in crime to be callous to the voice of conscience, and who were therefore more entitled to consideration than any other class of criminals. These persons, when perhaps beginning to be awakened to a tenderness of conscience under the ministrations and persuasions of the chaplains, began to feel alarmed at the idea of telling a falsehood by pleading not guilty, because their consicences told them that they were partly guilty of the offence imputed to them. But although partly guilty of the offence, they might not be guilty in a legal point of view, and would therefore be entitled to an acquittal, which they could not obtain at present if they felt unwilling to add the sin of falsehood to their previous crime. Instances frequently arose in which a man might plead guilty without having legally committed the offence imputed to him. For instance, a person stealing fruit from a tree would be guilty in law of trespass only, whereas, if the fruit had fallen from the tree it would be larceny. Such instances, involving the nice distinctions and subtleties of the law, though they were perfectly understood by lawyers, and probably by their Lordships, were not easily comprehended by the class of persons who were usually called to plead to indictments, and a great deal of inconvenience and injustice was the consequence. It had happened over and over again that a prisoner had pleaded guilty from tenderness of conscience; but that the Judge, happening to read over the depositions, found that the legal offence had not been committed, and accordingly had directed the plea to be withdrawn, and the prisoner to be tried upon a plea of not guilty. But the jury in such cases had heard the plea of guilty, and although the man had confessed, from an error in law, it was extremely difficult for the learned Judge in his summing up to obtain an acquittal. By the Bill now before their Lordships it was proposed to alter the question put to the prisoner in asking him to plead to an indictment, from the usual formula, "Are you guilty or not guilty?" to the more reasonable and suitable form of "Do you wish to be tried, or do you plead guilty?"

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

agreed with his noble and learned Friend as to the proper legal meaning of the plea of "Not guilty;" but he had seen numerous instances in which inconvenience had arisen from the prisoner misunderstanding the nature of the plea. A prisoner frequently said, "Guilty, my Lord," conscious that he had committed part, or believing he had committed the whole, of the legal offence imputed to him; but upon the clerk of the court explaining to him the meaning of the plea of "Not guilty," he would plead differently. It often happened, he believed, that the dialogue between the Judge and the prisoner, as to whether the latter should plead guilty or not guilty, had a very injurious effect upon the bystanders, who could not always understand the apparent anomaly. It was admitted on every hand, that the plea of "Not guilty" legally meant "I wish to be tried." Why not, then, substitute the true formula for the fictitious one, and use language which the prisoner could readily understand? He had received letters over and over again from chaplains of prisons and from magistrates, urging the desirability of the change which the Bill now before their Lordships proposed to effect.