SECOND BEADING. (Hansard, 25 July 1859)

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL,
in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, that in consequence of indictments having in many cases been preferred against persons before grand juries simply for purposes of oppression or extortion, this measure provided that in cases of perjury, subornation of perjury, conspiracy, obtaining money or other property by false pretences, keeping gambling-houses or disorderly houses, or indecent assaults, the prosecutors before preferring Bills should be required to take proceedings before magistrates, and so give the parties accused some notice of the accusations. At present indictments might be preferred before grand juries, and if they were found upon ex parte statements the plaintiffs were entitled to bench warrants, and the first notice the intended victims—the persons accused—received of the proceedings was from the execution of those warrants.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, the arguments used in favour of this Bill would equally apply to the whole grand jury system, and the right generally of preferring an indictment before a grand jury. Although he was anxious to guard against abuses in the cases referred to, he objected to constituting a justice of the peace, without any appeal or restraint, the sole judge as to whether an indictment should or should not be preferred. The measure was one which proposed a fundamental change in the constitutional rights of a British subject, and which appeared to him to be totally subversive of his liberty in those matters. He should certainly oppose the passing of the measure, unless it was materially altered in Committee.

§ MR. EDWIN JAMES
said, the Bill was undoubtedly of a startling character in regard to some of its provisions, and would require careful consideration. He concurred in the principle of preventing vexatious indictments; nevertheless, he thought that it required some alteration in order to pro- 444 tect the rights of a British subject to obtain justice for a grievous wrong done him.

MR. ESMONDE
said, that as the Bill referred to Ireland, he should like to hoar the opinion of the Solicitor General for Ireland upon it.

MR. HENLEY
said, this was a modified attempt to get rid of the grand jury system. Attempts had been made to get rid of the system altogether. He believed the system had been abused in the metropolis with a view of extorting money, but he must beg leave to reserve his opinion upon the question whether the Bill dealt rightly with the grievance. He would ask whether the object of the Bill could not be attained by restraining persons from presenting Bills instead of restraining the grand jury from finding Bills? But he thought the objections to the Bill could be better discussed in Committee.

MR. SEARJEANT DEASY
said, he believed the operation of the Bill in Ireland would amount almost to nothing, because the offence against which it was aimed was almost unknown there.