§ Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
§ LORD CHELMSFORD, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, that it had come up from the House of Commons, and explained its object to be to assimilate the procedure in criminal to that which prevailed in civil cases, so far as to give to the counsel for a prisoner the right of making a second speech at the close of the evidence for the defence. When a similar measure was before their Lordships a few years ago, it was argued that no such alteration as was proposed was necessary, inasmuch as the nature of the evidence in criminal cases was always known beforehand from the depositions taken before the magistrates, but then that argument did not apply to those cases, which were not unfrequent, in which the accused person reserved his defence till the day of trial. It was also contended that if the prisoner's counsel were permitted to make a second speech by way of summing up the evidence on behalf of his client the proceedings would be unduly protracted; but that he maintained was no valid objection where the proper administration of justice was at stake. When, he might add, the measure to which he had already alluded had gone into Committee an Amendment had been moved by his noble Friend Lord Wensleydale to the effect that the counsel for the prisoner should have the right of reply only in those cases in which it seemed to the Judge that the evidence rendered such a course expedient; but it was, he thought, undesirable that any provision should be introduced which would cause the mode of proceeding to be adopted to be so much a matter of uncertainty. The noble and learned Lord concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.
§ Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord Chelmsford.)
§ LORD CRANWORTHthought that, in ordinary cases, allowing the counsel for the prisoner to make two speeches would lead to great waste of time. He had never heard of a case in which there was any reason to believe that a prisoner had been convicted who would not have been found guilty if his counsel had been allowed to make two speeches on his behalf. Anything which tended to lengthen the proceedings of criminal trials threw obstacles in the way of prosecutions, and it was on that ground alone that he objected to the clause in this Bill which would increase the number of speeches. That objection did not go the principle of the Bill, many of the provisions of which he entirely approved, and therefore he should not oppose the second reading.
§ LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, that at the trial of Mr. Rumble for a breach of the Foreign Enlistment Act, his counsel, Mr. Bovill, expressed his regret that he had not the opportunity of summing up his evidence, and the Lord Chief Justice said that, in his opinion, there was not the slightest reason for the existing distinction between the practice in civil and that in criminal cases.
§ LORD CRANWORTHasked, why then did not the Lord Chief Justice permit Mr. Bovill to sum up. He knew of no law which would have prevented his doing so.
§ LORD CHELMSFORDWould it not be better to make a law at once?
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that as there would not be many cases in which any necessity for a summing up would arise, he thought that it would be better to leave the matter to the discretion of the Judge. It was desirable that the rules of procedure, especially in respect to evidence, should be the same in criminal as in civil proceedings; but there were some details of the Bill which would require consideration in Committee.
§ LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, that the Amendment which the noble and learned Lord seemed to recommend had already once proved fatal to the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLORshould certainly not propose an Amendment which experience showed was likely to be fatal to the Bill.
§ Motion agreed to. Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Tuesday next.