COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 27 February 1879)

§ SIR HENRY JAMES
said, that although he supported the Bill—the object of which was to give effect to a wish expressed by the House in relation to the Assizes Act of 1876—yet there were one or two practical disadvantages to the present Assize system. He was encouraged by the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was amenable to suggestions to point out to him the matters to which he referred. The House was aware that this Bill carried into effect what had already been sanctioned by the Assizes Act of 1876, and practically carried out the expression of opinion of this House, that it was desirable that no prisoner should be kept in custody untried for more than the space of three months. He should give his most cordial support to the Bill; but there were one or two practical objections to the system of centralization which it effectuated. The object of centralization was solely for the purpose of economizing judicial power; and if there were more judicial power, he did not think that anyone would wish the system of centralization to be carried out. It was desirable that prisoners should be tried in the counties where their crimes were committed, inasmuch as it brought home the administration of justice to the criminal classes, and had a good effect upon the community. The trial of prisoners in their own counties had a good effect also upon those concerned in the administration of justice—as the magistrates—and he knew of no class which benefited by the removal of prisoners from their own county, except the public, by the fact that judicial power was economized. As matters remained at present, there were no means of carrying out the opinion of the House, except by the system of centralization. But the practical objections that occurred to that system were worthy of consideration. Prisoners were, before conviction, supposed to be innocent, and it was, no doubt, desirable that they should be left as short time as possible in prison untried. But the system of centralization 1936 produced some evils. The effect of removing a prisoner a distance from the county where he had committed his crime took away some of his means of defence, and removed him from the persons who could come forward to help him. He had to take with him all his witnesses—perhaps the clergyman of his parish—to testify to his character; and as he could not, as a rule, pay his witnesses, it could not be expected that volunteer witnesses would give up their time to go long distances in order to testify to his character. The result was that prisoners went to trial without the witnesses whom they would have had if tried in their own county town. That was an injury inflicted upon those very persons for whom this system of Assizes had been established. Again, when before the magistrates, a prisoner, no doubt, employed a solicitor to defend him: but when tried hundreds of miles off, his solicitor could not conduct his defence, and thus prisoners were frequently left undefended at their trial. Therefore, those persons, for whose interests these Acts were passed, were sent to a distance from places where their offences had been committed without witnesses and without legal advice or assistance. Another matter which fell heavily on those concerned he would call attention to. No doubt, the Government might say they had done something to mitigate this evil by giving an allowance of £20, if a Judge certified to that effect. But that did not apply to witnesses to character, to whom no compensation was given. It was a great practical evil, and had been drawn to his attention by persons who had been witnesses, that when prisoners were sent to trial, witnesses for the prosecution had to attend, frequently under circumstances of great hardship. Amongst the witnesses were married women with families, and girls under 15 years of age; and to those persons the only allowance made was for their own expenses for travelling and for keep. Although the distance might be from the Welsh side of Monmouthshire to Gloucester, they had to travel without anyone to take charge of them, and to stop for days in a strange town where they knew no one, because the only expenses allowed to such witnesses were for themselves, and not for anyone to accompany them. No doubt, this was a small matter; but to those people on whom it fell it became a great grievance. 1937 It would be better for the House to take notice of this small matter, and prevent the hardship from arising. He had been told of an instance where a whole family were kept nearly a week in a town, and the only money paid to them was to one member of the family as a witness. No doubt, so long as the judicial strength remained where it was, this system of centralization must be adopted; but he hoped that it would not be carried into effect, except where absolutely necessary. It had an evil effect, both upon the public, by reason of removing the administration of justice from before their eyes, and upon prisoners and witnesses in subjecting them to hardships.

§ VISCOUNT EMLYN
wished to know whether, if the Bill passed, the full Winter Sessions could be abolished? He had understood that it was not intended to abolish them.

§ SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY
observed, that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) had only done justice to his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in stating that he had endeavoured to carry out the grouping of counties in such a manner as to minimize the inconveniences which must of necessity attend the system, and so to give effect to the expressed wish of the House that prisoners should not remain untried for more than three months. No doubt, some disadvantages resulted from the system of centralization. But if, in some cases, witnesses had to go a considerable distance, yet, at the present time, they had frequently to go as great a distance when trials took place in their own counties. To meet the expenses incurred, an allowance of £20 was made. He must also observe that the object of these Acts was not only to economize judicial power, but to save also the time of sheriffs, jurors, and other persons necessarily concerned in the transaction of judicial business. The House would see that this Bill was a necessary sequence to the principle laid down by the House—that no prisoner should remain in custody for a longer period than three months.

MR. PAGET
remarked that the Bill provided that the Winter Assize Act of 1876 should be construed as if it were therein enacted, with the substitution of Spring Assizes for Winter Assizes, and of the months of March, April, and May, for the months of November, De- 1938 cember, and January respectively. He should like to know whether the Act was to extend the Winter Assizes into those months of the Spring?

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, it was clear that the Bill enabled the Judges to hold four Assizes in the year by groups of counties. The months were purposely omitted, in order to make that possible; and it would be impossible for that to take place if they kept the Assizes to the Winter. This Act was passed to enable them to hold Assizes in two or three other months. The Judges were now framing a scheme for the regulation of Assizes, by which those for criminal and civil business were to be held early in the year, and criminal Assizes only were to be held in the Spring.

§ VISCOUNT EMLYN
observed, that in his county (Carmarthen) the Spring Assizes were held in January. He wished to know whether, under this Bill, a power would not be given to abolish either or both of the full Assizes now held in every county, and to substitute for them Assizes for a union of counties. He hoped that words would be inserted in the Bill to make it clear that this would not be done.

§ SIR HENRY JAMES
said, that, as he understood, the Assizes in which civil and criminal business took place were I to be held in the counties; but that the criminal business only was to be held elsewhere. With reference to the Spring Assizes being held in January, that only occurred through the old Winter Assizes being carried over Christmas. If there was any doubt, it could be put at rest by providing, upon the Report of the Bill, that only two Assizes should take I place out of the counties.

MR. PAGET
suggested that a provision should be inserted carrying into effect the regulation that two distinct holdings of Assize should be held in the counties.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
did not think that any difficulty could arise with regard to the Bill on the point suggested; but he would undertake that, if necessary, words should be added to make the provisions perfectly clear.