HL Deb 03 December 1819 vol 41 cc679-93
The Lord Chancellor

left the woolsack, and moved the order of the day for the second reading of the bill, entitled "an act to prevent delay in the administration of justice in cases of misdemeanor." His lordship then proceeded to describe the enactments of the bill, which he observed, if found liable to objection, might be subject to discussion and amendment in the committee. The preamble stated, that great delays have occurred in the administration of justice in cases of persons prosecuted by indictment, or information in the court of King's bench, at Westminster, or by indictment at the sessions; by reason that the defendants have, according to the present practice, an opportunity of postponing their trials to a distant period, by means of imparlances in the court of King's-bench, and by time given to plead at the sessions. This preamble explained the ground of the delay which it was proposed to remedy. The object of the first provision in the bill was, to prevent the occurrence of delay in the court of King's-bench; and it was accordingly proposed to enact, that no person, prosecuted, either by information or by indictment found or removed into that court shall be permitted to imparle to the following term, but shall be required to plead or demur thereto within four days. He had experienced great difficulty in attempting to trace the origin of this practice of imparlance; but it appeared to have been thought that something like the delay granted in civil actions ought to be extended to defendants in the case of misdemeanor. His lordship was, however, of opinion, that there was no sufficient analogy in the cases. The delay granted in civil actions was founded on the ground, that the defendant ought to be afforded an opportunity of talking with his adversary, and settling the matter in dispute; and also that he might have time to ascertain what his defence ought to be. In a case of this kind, he had thought it right not to rely on his own opinion, but had sought, information from persons of experience in his profession, who had agreed, in the inconvenience of the present practice. As the case at present stood, a defendant had a right to three rules, and if the information should not be filed nine days before the close of the term he could not be called upon to plead in that term; for the term would be expired before it was in the power of the court to require him to plead. In this state of things, the matter must necessarily go over to the next term. This unnecessary delay would be obviated by requiring the defendant to plead or demur within a certain number of days. It would be for their lordships to judge whether the number of days inserted in the clause were sufficient. It was not wished to call upon the defendant to plead instanter, but to oblige him to plead without any unreasonable delay. The remainder of the clause had reference to persons who might appear by their clerk in court, and it was followed with a prevision, making it lawful for the court of any judge, on sufficient case being shown to allow further time for defendants to plead or demur to an indictment or information. The next clause related to prosecutions by indictment at sessions of the peace. It provided that persons in custody are held to bail within [...] days before the sessions shell plead to the indictment, unless a writ of certiorari be delivered before the jury be sworn. Whether this clause was of was not calculated to answer the object in view, would be proper matter for discussion when in the committee, if their lordships permitted the bill to be read a second time, and to proceed to that stage.—His lordship then went over the other clauses of the bill. With regard to furnishing copies of indictments to defendants which had been alluded to on a former night, that would be matter for the consideration of the committee. If any noble lord should bring forward a proposition on the subject, their lordships would consider how far such an arrangement was advisable. It would necessarily be attended with some expense. Having said thus much, he would again assure their lordships, that the measure which he had the honour to propose to their consideration was not one suggested by any circumstances connected with the present situation of the country. He had had it for some time in contemplation; for he was perfectly satisfied that the delays which took place in prosecutions for misdemeanor were a great evil. It might be thought necessary to make exceptions, and the propriety of introducing any into the bill would be a fit subject for discussion in the committee. In introducing this bill, he believed that he was correcting an erreneous practice which had grown up contrary to the ancient law. His lordship here cited the case of the Seven Bishops, who wished to imparle, in order to postpone their trial to a subsequent term. The subject was on that occasion much discussed, but it was decided by the judges, on reference to the practice of the court, that defendants were not intitled to imparlance, but must plead immediately. His lordship next referred to Nair's case: in 1758, and said, that a similar decision was then given. He concluded by moving that the bill be now read a second time.

Earl Grosvenor

said, he would not occupy much of their lordship' time, as he did not mean to enter into the details of this bill. His view of the necessity of this and the other measures of severity was much altered since their lordships had come to the conclusion they had done the other night. He might still take the liberty of objecting to parts; but with respect to the question of adapting some such measures generally, their lordships had placed him in a very different situation from that in which he previously stood, and his opinion must be governed by his view of the state of the country under the circumstances of their lordships' decision. It appeared that they were determined to resort to no measures of conciliation, but to throw away the scabbard and depend upon the sword alone. It therefore followed, that their lordships must adopt this and other measures of severity, if they meant to preserve the peace of the country. The noble and learned lord had introduced this bill as a permanent measure, and not as one merely applicable to the present circumstances. Under these circumstances, he would have been happy to have seen provisions introduced in it to prevent delays on the part of the crown. A noble friend of his had on a former occasion pourtrayed in strong colours to their lordships, the evils arising from delay in prosecuting on ex officio informations. Now, when, such powers were left to the attorney-general, when that officer was permitted to hold informations over the heads of defendants for any indefinite period, it was adding greatly to that grievance to abolish the right of imparlance. By this proceeding the security of the subject was greatly diminished, while the power of the crown was increased. As he had observed, however, the view of the whole which he must take, under the altered situation produced by their lord- ships' previous discussion, took from him the opportunity of contesting the necessity of the severe measures now in progress.

Lord Erskine

rose, and opposed the motion. His noble and learned friend, he said, had intimated his inability to trace the origin of the right of imparlance. For his own part, he could look for it no where else than in the ancient law of the country, and this proposition of his noble and learned friend he regarded as a complete alteration of the law. Had any disadvantage arisen from the practice, it would surely have been felt in the lapse of time, and have been rescinded before now. In the time of chief justice Hale the question had been agitated, and there was then no diversity of opinion. That learned judge held that the traverser of an indictment was entitled to the postponement of his trial to the next term. But to show that this right had been recognised by the legislature at a very recent period, his lordship referred to an act of parliament passed some years ago, in which persons indicted for misdemeanor were allowed to traverse to the following sessions. This act was passed in their own time; and, though difference of opinion might arise in the course of years, he had expected that his noble and learned friend would have explained more fully the nature of the new lights which had operated on his mind on this subject. What had occurred the course of fourteen years to render this change in the practice of the law necessary? When he read in the preamble of the bill, that "great delays had occurred the administration of justice," he must say, that these delays were given to afford time for the defence. The defendant was justly entitled to them—entitled to them by law. The noble and learned lord stated, that he had consulted persons in the profession of the law acquainted with the practice. He wished his noble friend had stated what was said by the different persons he consulted. His noble and learned friend had stated, that exceptions might be made to the operation of the bill; but whatever exceptions his noble and learned friend might be willing to admit, were so many objections to the principle of the measure. This bill, their lordships were informed, had not originated in the circumstances which had given rise to the other measures before the House; but he must confess that when he saw the table covered with other bills tending to abridge the rights of the people, he thought it a very singular coincidence; that this one should be brought forward at he same time. He conceived the origin of the delays granted in cases of misdemeanor to be the wish to preserve an analogy with the law of treason, which had rendered the law of this country celebrated through the whole civilized world. The protection of human life which that statute afforded was the glory of England. In cases of misdemeanor, as well as of treason, how hard would it be to send an individual to trial unprepared, amidst the effervescence of opinion? The delay made the charge undergo a salutary quarantine. Their lordships might recollect the case of a man who some years ago had attempted the life of the soverign. An application was made to the count, to appoint counsel for this man, and he (lord Erskine), then at the bar, was applied to. He asked lord Kenyon if he ought to accept the charge, and that learned judge gave his opinion in the affirmative. When they were pro-posing to take from defendants advantages which they possessed, their lordships would do well to consider the indulgence which the law allowed in this and other cases of treason. The defendant was allowed a list of the names of the jurors, with their description, and the places; of residence. There was given to him a similar list of the witnesses, that he might know who were to appear against him. Finally, he was allowed his right of challenge. All these rights were enjoyed in the case to which he alluded. The defence of the man was insanity, but his trial and the extraordinary circumstance which gave rise to it, attracted the eyes of all Europe, and gave still more celebrity to the wisdom and humanity of British law. This feature of humanity to the accused was, however, now about to be defaced; but, upon what ground? Had not former times experienced as great agitations as were felt at present? Had not the influence of the passions been as strong, the extent of discontents as great, formerly as now? It was not proposed to diminish the power of the attorney general. Let, then, the accused retain the few advantage's still left in his possession. The delays were allowed by the ancient law of the land, and were consistent with fairness and justice. But it was said the court had the power of allowing further time to plead, on sufficient cause being shown. From what he knew of the practice of the courts, he could look to little advantage to the defendant from this clause. When the delay to which the defendant was entitled by law was exhausted, it was not probable that the court would grant a further postponement, unless some strong case could be made out, such as the absence of an important witness; and this was what the court could now do without this bill. His great objection to the measure was, that while it wrested from the subject an important and valuable privilege, it left the attorney general in full possession of all these grinding powers which were the subject of general complaint, and which ought long since to have been taken from him. Their lordships, in looking at the diseases of the country, differed in opinion as to the remedy, in the same manner as persons differed in treating a sick man. Some would blister and bleed him; others wished to apply only emollients and medicines of the mildest operation. Both parties were equally the friends of the patient, but his Safety depended on the choice which might be made. In his opinion in the present situation of the country, the mild treatment was the best. As the law now stood, if the attorney-general did not choose to bring on a trial, the defendant had means of compelling him; but in all cases where the king was not prosecutor, this indefinite delay could not take place. Was not this difference a fit subject for the consideration; of their lordships, when they were passing such a bill as the present? It was said, that to alter the law with respect to the power of the attorney-general, would be innovation. But then, why begin innovation? And why, when it is begun, let it be all on one side? If you wish to make changes, let them be equal to both parties. Looking at this, bill, coupled with the others on their lordships table, he felt himself bound to give it his decided resistance.

The Earl of Liverpool

, in rising to support the motion of his noble and learned friend, did not mean to go into those technical consideration which, on such a subject, must be necessarily referred to. He agreed in some respects with the noble and learned lord who had last addressed the house. Although not competent to enter upon a discussion of the legal part of this question, he felt disposed to make some general observations on its main principle, and the effect which it was intended to produce. That principle seemed to him clear and intelligible. He was, convinced that, if their lordships did not pass this measure, they had better at once declare that every kind of blasphemy and sedition was to be tolerated in future. It might be fairly concluded, that to justify, any innovation upon the ancient law of; this country, some strong case of necessity ought to be made out. He was also willing to admit that, supposing the law to be erroneous in theory, yet if no practical inconvenience ensued from it, it might be unwise to alter it upon speculative views alone. But, if he was not grievously mistaken, the ancient law was favourable to the principle pf this measure. It seemed to him, that no analogy could be discovered in a state of law, which permitted little or no delay, in cases, of treason, murder, or felony, but allowed it in misdemeanors and bailable offences. Persons charged with the higher crimes; were in most instances put immediately on their trial, whilst, in those of a lesser description, a delay might be claimed, extending sometimes, to the period of a year. Such delay, if granted at all, appeared to him likely to prove less injurious in cases of superior atrocity, because in them the person of the offender was secured. But, in cases of libel, the of- fence might be repeated (as, their lord-ships must well know had been frequently, done) day after, day, and hour after hour, before the, party, accused could be brought to trial. All, this mischief would be prevented by a more seasonable prosecution. An instant trial, might, afford an adequate correction to the evil, By the present measure it was also provided, that when-ever any special reason, could be assigned, the courts of law should, have authority, to interfere, and, to allow, the party further time. He agreed, that they ought not now to consider themselves as legislating de novo. He should be the last man to propose or recommend any additional restrictions on the liberty of the press; for he regarded, it as one of the best securities of public freedom. But that it stood, in need of some regulation, would, he thought, be denied by no man, who had attended to that mass of licentiousness, of wickedness, indecency, and profaneness, by which it had recently been contaminated. When doctrines contrary to every principle of religion and morals were openly promulgated the law ought to be made effectual for its own purposes. Could the imperious necessity of applying some remedy be controverted? Could the progress of this formidable evil be arrested without some proceeding of this nature? The House had been engaged in a great deal of discussion with respect to public meeting? and the dangers arising from them; he believed, however, that no remedy, even in relation to those dangers, would be so effectual as the pre-sent measure. Still he was ready to admit, that the choice of a remedy might be a matter of difficult consideration; but the existence of the evil, and the importance pf some remedy, was obvious and indisputable. It was that about which all men could at once see and judge equally well. He asked for the support of no man to this proceeding, who did not acknowledge the present evil. If that were acknowledged, could it be maintained that it was fitting that the law should continue unaltered? It was with reference to that evil,, that his noble and learned friend had introduced this bill. The question was, whether they ought, in the case of those offences to, which he had alluded, to extend to parties accused the favour of traversing or imparling for entire months. He agreed that the measure was an innovation, and that the House was bound to require evidence of a strong necessity. Was there not, then, sufficient evidence pf this description in the actual circum-stances of the country, and in all those practices which notoriously prevailed? His majesty's government had been asked why more prosecutions had not been instituted. He could only say, that the answer to that question was of itself a strong argument in defence of this proceeding. No effort had been left untried during the last twelve months to bring persons charged with blasphemous and seditious libels to justice. It had, not-withstanding, been found impossible in the present state of the law to obtain more than one conviction. If, then, there did exist a lamentably great and pressing evil, he trusted the House, would not be indisposed to adopt some measure of this kind. The noble and learned lord; who preceded him, had objected to it on the ground that it took away an advantage from the subject, whilst it left untouched the power of the attorney-general to file ex officio informations. But he (lord Liverpool) was desirous that this latter question should be tried on the same principle. Did any positive inconvenience arise from the exercise of this power? The attorney-general was invested with this discretion—a greater discretion, he admitted, than belonged to any other individual; but it was exercised under a responsibility to both Houses of Parliament. If any strong case of abuse in the administration of this power could be brought forward, he, for one, should be willing to consider the propriety of withdrawing it; but he could see no reason for going into such a. discussion,, when, for the last thirty years, through the whole duration of his political life, from the time at least when his noble and learned friend on the woolsack was appointed to the office of attorney-general down to the present, the only blame or public complaint had been, that the prosecutions were not more numerous. With this experience then, that there was no ground of accusation or suspicion that this power had been improperly directed against the subject, he could not but feel adverse to the introduction of any provision respecting it into the measure under consideration. There was no charge of abuse, but the error, if there had been an error, was entirely on the contrary side. He could not assent, therefore, at this moment, to any proposition for altering the law in that respect, and trusted that he had shown sufficient cause for the measure immediately before them.

Lord Holland

declared that he felt some very decided objections to this proceeding. He did not consider himself competent, any more than the noble earl, to look at it in a technical point of view, but should endeavour to state the general nature of his reasons for opposing it. The noble earl had argued this question in a way not very respectful to his noble and learned friend. A great part of his speech was filled with reflexions on that ancient law by which the subjects of this country had hitherto been governed. The noble and learned lord on the woolsack had not uttered a single word on the necessity or intended operation of this measure. He had, therefore, as it appeared to him, received a severe rebuke from the noble earl who had last addressed the House. The wisdom of our ancestors, about which they had often beard so much rant, was at length represented as inadequate. Our boasted constitution was now, at least in some of its parts, described as absurd in theory, and in- effectual in practice. Some of its most important regulations were to be renounced. It had, however, been truly stated by his noble and learned friend, that these laws had been fully revised and re-considered, at the time of our glorious Revolution. They had then been approved by some of the wisest and most excellent men that ever sat in parliament. Among them was lord Somers, who, taking for his guide the opinions of sir Matthew Hale, went still farther, and condemned proceedings by information. He thought, proceedings by indictment a safer and more constitutional course. The noble earl had rebuked his noble friend, and traduced the constitution; but he had not shown that blasphemy and sedition might not be punished by the law as it now existed. It had been urged, that the offence of the libel had frequently been repeated before trial, but every one of these additional acts of publication might be already prosecuted. Such acts were, moreover, always referred to in aggravation of punishment. Another difference between the noble earl and the noble and learned lord on the woolsack seemed to arise from a fact mentioned by the latter, and which was that this measure had been long in his contemplation. The noble earl on the other hand had treated it as a parcel of the present budget—as called forth by an immediate necessity, and not as a subject of calm dispassionate judgment. If the House, therefore, could have the benefit of another speech from the noble and learned lord, he had no doubt that the statement of the noble earl would be repelled. Could it be gravely maintained that we had hitherto lived under a state of law that was not adequate to the punishment of vice? They had been told that the attorney-general was a responsible officer; so he apprehended were all persons in public situations. The noble earl had said, that if any system of abuse could be shown to exist in the exercise of that officer's discretion, he would willingly go into a consideration of his powers, but that no such abuse had even been alleged. Upon this point, however, he roust beg to refer them to a bill which he had wished to introduce some few years ago, and the object of which would have been to take away, all ex-officio informations. It was not satisfactory to him to be reminded, that the attorney-general was liable to an impeach- ment. He had stated upon the occasion before alluded to, what ho could have proved, that there had been an increase of twenty to one criminal informations in proportion to the other modes of proceeding. He could also have established something further, namely; that out of twenty filed, only one or two had been prosecuted. The House had frequently heard of the dangers to be apprehended in touching the sacred ark of the constitution. It was a common argument, that it was better to resist inquiry than to innovate upon any ancient law. Here, however, it was proposed to repeal a branch of the law favourable to the subject, and which appeared to him to have been enacted in the same spirit as many other of our free institutions, and which, in his conscience, he believed had often saved this country from being deluged with blood. It appeared to him to involve the same principles as the law of treason, and to have been passed on account of that in-equality which was supposed would always exist where the subject was prosecuted by the Crown. —The noble and learned lord had confined his observations to a technical view of this question, and he must confess he had heard with astonishment, that, framed as the measure was, it had long been under his consideration. The very title appeared to him to be loose and inapplicable. The noble and learned lord's legal knowledge had not often been equalled, and certainly, never surpassed; yet he had utterly failed in making the House understand what the extent and nature of the delay was for which this proceeding was to afford a remedy. How were misdemeanors of this kind usually prosecuted? He believed in the court of King's-Bench, by information or by indictment at sessions of Oyer and Terminer. There were two species of information; the one filed by the attorney-general upon his own mere authority; and the other granted by the court of King's-Bench, upon cause shown. By which of these modes of proceeding was the greatest delay incurred? Upon criminal information filed, there was a right of imparlance granted to the ensuing term. This was granted as an indulgence upon application, and was matter of usage on the first process. This was not the case, he apprehended, upon an indictment; for although the party might there traverse, it was only by mutual consent and arrangement. Now, he should have liked to have heard from the noble and learned lord, in what cases these delays occurred most frequently. He had looked into the bill in vain for the opinion of the noble and learned lord on that point; and; indeed, he must say, notwithstanding the great legal knowledge of the noble and learned lord, that a more clumsy, a more disjointed, or a more unintelligible bill, never was drawn up. What would the late earl Stanhope have said of it? Nothing, certainly, would have given him (lord Holland) greater delight than to have heard the eloquence of that noble earl on such a bill as this. Assuming a falsehood for its foundation, it went on to assert that which was not the case; even supposing the first assumption true. After having had the advantage of being assisted in framing it by all the learned gentlemen in the employment of the Crown, the noble and learned lord had said on the second reading; that the preamble must be altered. If the noble and learned lord, with all the legal assistance of which he had had the benefit, had been unable to make the bill intelligible, how were its provisions to be understood by those whom it was to affect? This reminded him of an anecdote which he had read of a great man, who had been a member of that Houses He alluded to the earl of Shaftesbury, the author of the "Characteristics," and who was one of the purest: and' ablest writers that this country sever produced. He seldom mixed in the affairs of the world; but when the bill for allowing counsel to persons accused of high-treason was introduced, he came forward in the House of Commons (for he was then lord Ashley), and for the first time in his life attempted to address the House in support of the measure. Eloquent however, as his writings were he was so overpowered by the emotions which the numerous assembly around him excited that he lose the train of his argument, and was unable to proceed. "Sir," said he, "if I who rise only to give my opinion on the bill now depending, am so confounded that I am unable to express the least of what I proposed to say, what must the condition of that man be, who, without any assistance, is pleading for his life, and under apprehensions of being deprived of it?" The noble and learned lord, in one of his speeches on this momentous occasion, after stating all the evils that arose from the present practice, had expressed his regret that the assizes were not more frequent. There the noble and learned lord argued well; as he always did when he was willing to do so; and he (lord Holland) was of the same opinion on that subject. But it was surely lamentable, that after two years preparation, they should have crammed down their throats a morsel like this, which, with the assistance of so many eminent lawyers, the noble and learned lord could not render palatable.—The noble lord then proceeded to quote several parts of the preamble, and contended, that it was shown in the bill that the delays complained of arose from defendants being allowed time to plead after indictment.—After what he had shown of the nature of this bill, it was manifest that its title was grossly deceiving, it professed to be a bill to prevent delays in prosecutions for misdemeanors, but it did not say one word of the greatest delays—those which occurred in proceedings by ex-officio informations. By the wise provision of those great men who lived at the time of the Revolution in 1688, and to whose authority their lordships often referred, improper delay could not occur by allowing the accused time to plead, because, in prosecutions by indictment, the defendants were obliged to enter into recognizances, which they must forfeit, if they did not appear to plead. But in proceedings by ex-officio informations, the attorney-general had the power of punishing a person accused, though not convicted of a libel, by keeping a prosecution hanging over his head for life. He did not say that this had been done by the present attorney-general, or his predecessors; but this he would say, that there were at present forty informations depending, some of which had been hanging over the parties accused for one, two, three, four, five, and some for ten years. And this must surely be admitted to be a shocking state of the law. He would not at present enter into the views which he entertained respecting the danger said to exist in the country—a subject on which he differed, perhaps, from many noble lords who had stated their opinions to the House. Whatever might be the extent of the danger, he thought it was owing, in a great measure, to the distrust of the people in parliament. If their lordships' went on to increase that distrust by passing measures such as the present, they would, by shaking their confidence in parliament (which he thought the greatest safety of the constitution), inevitably increase the evil He could not hope that his opposition would prevent the bill from passing, even in its present state; but if it were so altered as to legislate on both sides, by preventing the delays which occurred in prosecutions by ex-officio informations, as well as in those by indictment, he should perhaps give it his feeble support on the third reading.

Lord Lilford

began by making some remarks respecting the apprehensions which lord Holland seemed to entertain of giving too great an influence to the Crown, and those which the earl of Liverpool held with respect to the absolute predominance of the people. For his own part, he was equally jealous of the absolute authority of both: Justum et tenacem propositi virum Non civium ardor prava jubentium, Non vultus instantis tyranni, Mente quatit solida. The noble and learned lord, when he first proposed this bill to the House, had told them that it was not suggested by the exigencies of the present time; and he was much pleased to hear that declaration. There was no doubt that the subjects of the realm had reason to complain of legislative enactments, made to meet temporary exigencies. When he looked over the Statute book, he found the laws enacted for temporary purposes extremely numerous. In his view of the case, experience showed not only what was true, but also what was expedient. It was or it was not true, that by the present practice a long interval elapsed between indictment and trial, during which many innocent persons were compelled to stand in the situation of criminals; whilst others, who were not indeed criminals but certainly culprits, stood in the situation of innocent persons. It had been said, that the reason of the noble and learned lord for introducing the bill was, to expedite trials for seditious and blasphemous libels. Now, the only question was, whether this was a sufficient reason for disturbing the law of the country; and as he believed that the delay which the law at present permitted retarded the course of justice, on that view he should support the bill.

The bill was then read a second time.