§ MR. EYKYNsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in refusing to undertake the further prosecution in the case of "Regina v. the Directors of Overend, Gurney, and Co. (Limited)," and also refusing to furnish a sum not exceeding £5,000 towards the cost of that prosecution, he was aware that the Directors had been committed by the Lord Mayor of London to take their trial upon a charge of conspiring to defraud the public of £3,000,000 sterling, and a private individual bound over in £5,000 to prosecute the law with effect; that a grand jury of merchants had found a true Bill, and that the Lord Chief Justice had ordered the Directors to find sureties for £10,000 each to appear; whether the Law Officers of the Crown had advised such a refusal, and on what grounds; and, whether the Law incapacitates the prosecutor from appearing in person; and if so, who is responsible for the prosecution of the case on the trial, and the due administration of public justice?
MR. BRUCESir, I was aware of the facts referred to in the Question of the hon. Gentleman. I must say I did not consult the Law Officers of the Crown upon this occasion; but I did bring the matter before the Cabinet, where it received due consideration, and my Colleagues were of opinion that there was nothing in the circumstances of this case to distinguish it from ordinary cases of fraud, where the prosecution must be conducted by the sufferers themselves. The only precedent that I know of was that of the British Bank, the prosecution of which was undertaken at the cost of the Government, and that was regarded not so much as a precedent to be followed as an example to be avoided. From time to time similar applications have been made to the Government, and all have received the same reply. During the last term an application was made to Government to furnish the costs and undertake the prosecution of the Directors of the Leeds Bank. That application was also refused. Still less can the Government undertake to furnish a contribution towards the prosecution the conduct of which does not rest in their own hands. I am aware it is said that there is an inconsistency on the part of the Government in this matter, and that they acted very differently in the case of Madame Rachel. But that case was entirely different. The question at stake in the case of Madame Rachel was whether the Judge of the Sheriff's Court, when sitting in a criminal court, had properly exercised his jurisdiction, and on the decision in that case rested, the legality of many previous decisions, so that the matter was one of great public interest. My hon. Friend asks me whether the law incapacitates the prosecutor from appearing in person. The prosecutor has power in civil cases to appear; but the Lord Chief Justice has laid it down to be the rule and practice of the courts that prosecutors in criminal cases should not be permitted to appear in person. With respect to the question as to who is responsible for the prosecution of the case on the trial, I can. only answer that this case rests exactly on the same footing as other cases. Cases of this kind are extremely rare. But this is not the occasion for entering upon the question 823 whether cases of this sort should be prosecuted at the expense of the Government. All I can say is that it is not the practice. The Government, after mature consideration of the subject, did not believe that the circumstances of this case furnished sufficient reason for an exception to the general rule.
§ MR. EYKYNgave notice that on going into Committee of Supply on Thursday next he would call the attention of the House to the subject.
§ MR. FAWCETTasked whether there was any law to prevent a solicitor from appearing?
MR. BRUCEsaid he believed there was no law; but he did not undertake to say what was the practice of the Courts. In certain cases he knew there was a rule that barristers alone should be heard.