EXPENSES OF PROSECUTIONS. (Hansard, 19 February 1851)

§ MR. F. MACKENZIE
wished to know whether the Bill was intended to apply to Scotland? The present system entailed very heavy expenses on that country, and he was afraid those expenses were likely to be increased by a resolution of the Treasury to pay by salaries instead of fees.

§ MR. HUME
said, there was one point in the right hon. Baronet's speech which ought to be considered: that was, the allowing differences to exist in different counties with regard to the payment of officers connected with public prosecutions. If hon. Gentlemen would take the trouble to read the evidence given before the Committee of the hon. Member for Manchester, they would see that the evidence of the chief constable of Stockport was directed entirely to that point, and threw much light upon it. That was a subject of the greatest possible importance; and during the progress of the Bill, he should use his best exertions to provide a remedy for the evil, for he could not think the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would allow one rule, to obtain in Lancashire, and another in Cheshire, instead of providing, as he ought, that clerks of the peace should be placed on the same footing in every part of the kingdom. He (Mr. Hume) would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should repeal all the present Bills relating to prosecutions, and bring forward one single measure relating to that question, for at present the law was so exceedingly complicated that none but a lawyer could understand it. A Bill of that nature would be of immense importance, and would greatly facilitate the proceedings, while it 828 would considerably lessen the expenses of criminal prosecutions.

§ MR. S. WORTLEY
agreed with the hon. Member for Peebles-shire, that it was of considerable importance to know whether this measure was to extend to Scotland. But the object for which he principally rose, was to notice a point which had not yet been adverted to—namely, the necessity of making some provision, not for the regulation of the expenses of, but for the conducting of prosecutions. The existing system was an extremely defective one. How it was to be remedied might require much consideration; but, as it was, it placed not only the Judge but the administration of justice in the greatest jeopardy. In a great majority of cases there was no one responsible for the prosecution. The depositions were placed in the hands of the Judge, who had no previous knowledge of the case, and had to extract the facts from the depositions as well as he could. It was said, that the Judge ought to be the counsel of the accused; but he differed from that maxim, and thought the Judge should hold himself impartial between the accused and the accuser. The Judge was now, however, placed in a peculiar position from being obliged to rely on the depositions for the prosecution; and it very often lengthened the trial, as the Judge could not know to what points he ought to direct his attention. He (Mr. Wortley) knew cases where such confusion arose from the depositions, that prisoners of whose guilt there could be no doubt had escaped. He was aware that the observations he was making tended to the creation of a public prosecutor; but he did not believe it would be necessary to go to such an extent, though he was decidedly of opinion there ought to be some person to see the depositions were in a proper form, and that the case was properly brought before the jury. As to the expenses of grand jury cases, his experience induced him to think it very doubtful whether they could hope for any decided saving without a change in the system. The Chief Justice of the Common Pleas had introduced some alterations which worked well, and some expense might be saved in those districts where there were stipendiary magistrates.

§ SIR G. GREY
said, with regard to the observations of the hon. Member for Montrose, he had to assure him that the Bill provided a limitation of the expenses of prosecutions; and in reply to the question put by the hon. Member for Peebles-shire, 829 he had to state that Scotland did not come within the purpose of the Bill. In some respects Scotland had an advantage over England in the matter of prosecutions. For instance, owing to the difference between the law of Scotland and England, certain offences were tried before the sheriff-substitute, which in England would go before a grand jury. With respect to the remarks that had been addressed to the House by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Buteshire, the difficulty was to attain the end which the right hon. Gentleman had in view without establishing a public prosecutor. His right hon. Friend know that there was great difficulty connected with the question of a public prosecutor, in relation to the loss to which the establishing such an officer would subject gentlemen of the bar and attorneys whose professional practice chiefly depended on their attendance on assize circuits, and at sessions.

§ MR. HENLEY
said, the public were undoubtedly indebted to the Government for bringing forward the Bill, dealing as it did with a very important subject. It was a question on which much difference of opinion existed as to magistrates' clerks being concerned in criminal prosecutions. If the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department thought that provision should be made to prohibit magistrates' clerks from being connected in the prosecution of cases heard originally before the magistrates to whom they acted as clerks, he must of necessity do something with respect to the proceedings of public prosecutions, which were now brought before the courts so imperfectly that their miscarriage frequently occurred. With reference to the question of a public prosecutor, he (Mr. Henley) was certain that to prevent the miscarriage of public prosecutions, something must be done in that direction.