SECOND READING. (Hansard, 3 March 1884)

§ MR. WARTON
said, he was surprised and astonished at the proposal to read now a second time a Bill which meant nothing more nor less than a revolution in their Criminal Law system. This proposal only showed that the Government were determined to pass all they could. It was astonishing that this course should be taken at an hour when everyone was wearied by a long debate. Probably not one Member in 20 would care what alteration might be proposed in this matter. In a recent case in the Provinces, one of the Judges had called the attention of the jury and the counsel to the fact that there was a very important witness who had not been called on either side, and that was the prisoner's wife; and it was to carry out the idea then suggested that the Attorney General had brought forward this Bill, to enable husbands and wives to be called as witnesses against each other. The policy of their law had always been to consider the relations of husband and wife so sacred, and their friendship and love and union so complete, that it would be impossible to call them to give evidence against each other. To this there was one exception, and that was in a case in which a husband assaulted his wife, or a wife assaulted her husband. That was a different matter, and in ordinary cases they were never called against each other. He begged to move the adjournment of the debate.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (SIR HENRY JAMES)
said, that, while the hon. and learned Member was surprised at his moving the second reading of this Bill, he was surprised that the hon. and learned Member had not blocked the Bill. He had not the slightest idea why that was, unless it was that the hon. and learned Member approved of the contents of the Bill. As to the Bill being revolutionary, he might mention that the House of Lords had passed a similar Bill; and it was only because he wished to be as revolutionary as the House of Lords that he desired to read the Bill a second time. A similar Bill was passed by the late Parliament by a majority of nearly 5 to 2; and if there had been any substantial objection to this Bill, he was sure his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard), or other hon. Members, would have blocked it, in order to insure a discussion upon it. They had all been silent; and he trusted that the House would agree to the Motion, especially considering that the hon. and learned Member for Bridport had not blocked the Bill—a process to which he never failed to resort when he was in earnest.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
said, he thought the fact that the House of Lords had passed a similar Bill to this was scarcely a reason why this Bill should now be read a second time, without the Attorney General having condescended to give any explanation of its provisions, or the grounds for introducing it. It was a Bill which certainly dealt with an important point in Criminal Law, and it ought not to be smuggled through the House between 1 and 2 in the morning. It was a Bill which dealt with the competency as a witness of the husband or wife of a prisoner, and this was of all days a most unfortunate day for bringing forward such a Bill without explanation or defence, because there was in to-day's papers a report of a ease in which the Court of Criminal Appeal had decided against the competency of a husband or wife of a prisoner as a witness, one against the other.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
asked whether the hon. Member was in Order in considering this case?

§ MR. SPEAKER
The Question is that this debate be now adjourned, and the hon. Member must confine his remarks to that Question.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
said, it seemed to him to be necessary, in order to arrive at a decision on that question, to consider what it was that was to be adjourned. This Bill dealt with a point of considerable interest; and, although he could have understood the Bill being read a second time yesterday, he could not assent to it now, after the experience of to-day; and he should certainly vote for the adjournment of the debate, and against the second reading, until he heard from the Government that instead of bringing in a fragmentary Bill of this kind they would introduce a measure which would deal with the whole Law of Evidence, so that it would not be necessary for the House to take up the subject over and over again in a tinkering fashion. The arguments that might be adduced in favour of adjournment were numerous; and he trusted the Government would not attempt to force upon a minority the second reading of a Bill of such consequence that the Government themselves thought it necessary to take the course they had.