HC Deb 16 May 1895 vol 33 cc1426-7

Order read for Second Reading.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FRANK LOCKWOOD,) York

hoped the House would allow the Second Reading of this Bill to be taken. It had, he said, already been printed and circulated. The object of the proposed measure was to enable husband and wife to give evidence in criminal cases when the husband or wife was the subject of a criminal charge. There were certain provisions in the Bill as regarded the limitation of cross-examination, and there was also a provision to the effect that the husband or wife could not be called without the consent of the person who was accused. He thought the Bill, which had already passed the Lords, might very well be read a second time now.

MR. SAMUEL EVANS (Glamorgan, Mid.)

did not think the explanation given by the Solicitor General, of this Bill was sufficient. The hon. and learned Gentleman stated that the object of the measure was to provide that husband and wife might be competent to be called as witnesses in criminal cases. That might or might not be a right principle to adopt, but the Bill was certainly one which required a great deal more discussion than could be given to it at that hour of the night. It introduced to the general law of the land a new principle in reference to criminal offences. The law, as it at present existed, said that a prisoner was not, excepting in certain cases, a competent witness on his own behalf. Without expressing any opinion one way or the other as to whether it was right to give a prisoner an opportunity of going in the witness-box and submitting himself to cross-examination as to his whole career, and thus laying himself open to prejudice which might in consequence be excited against him, he did think that a Bill of this kind, which went to the very root of the criminal procedure of this country, ought not to be given a Second Reading without a fuller discussion on an occasion of this sort. The hon. and learned Gentleman said the Bill had already passed the House of Lords, but that was no reason why it should be passed by the House of Commons without further discussion. At any rate, for his own part, he should desire that a much fuller exposition should be given of it by those in charge of the Bill than had been given by the Solicitor General. The instances in which, at the present moment, a prisoner was allowed to give evidence on his own behalf were very few.

It being midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.