The Lord Chancellorrose to introduce a bill. He begged leave to assure their lordships, that it did not arise out of the circumstances of the times. It was well known that it had been his intention to introduce this bill, whether the circumstances which at present called for their consideration had occurred or not. He then proceeded to describe the object of the bill. He stated, that it was the practice of the courts to allow defendants, in cases of information or indictments to imparle or traverse. The effect of which was, to gain time till the next term or sessions. The effect of this practice had been, in several instances, that the trials of individuals against whom informations had been filed, or indictments found, had been so delayed that the prosecution failed to answer any of the purposes for which it was commenced. His object, therefore, in the present bill, was, to take away the right of imparling or traversing, by compelling the parties to plead in the term or at the sessions in which the information should be filed or the indictment found, unless, upon any special grounds urged, the court should think proper to allow the parties to imparle or traverse. This would prevent those unnecessary delays to which he had already adverted, without in any way interfering with substantial justice. His lordship presented the bill, which was read a first time.
Lord Hollandwished to understand distinctly the object of the bill. He had not caught sufficiently the expressions of the noble and learned lord to understand whether the bill was intended equally to apply to imparling and traversing, to prevent both, or in what particular way it was in that respect to operate. He wished, therefore, for further information upon those points. There was another point also respecting which he wished to know whether any provision was introduced into the bill—he alluded to informations filed ex officio by the attorney-general. He wished to know whether there was any provision by which that 343 officer, in case of his not proceeding after a certain time upon an information, might be compelled either to go on or to enter a nolle prosequi? He wished likewise to be informed, whether any provision was introduced into the bill for the purpose of enabling the court to grant a copy of an information or indictment to the defendant, at the public expense? As, according to what had been stated by the noble and learned lord, the defendant was to be hurried on to his trial much more rapidly than at present, it seemed more than ever necessary that some provision should be made, by means of which he should be enabled to know the precise nature of the charge against him. If this were not the case, the bill would appear to do every thing for the prosecution and nothing for the defendant.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that what was called imparling in civil actions, was more generally known by the name of traversing in cases of prosecution for misdemeanor, and it was the right arising out of this practice, which it was the object of the bill to take away, except in those cases where, from special circumstances, the court, either of king's bench or at the sessions, should deem it advisable to allow the party the benefit of traversing. Respecting ex officio informations, there was no provision in the bill, but it would be, of course, competent to any noble lord, in the progress of the bill, to move any clause he might think requisite. Neither was there any provision in the bill with regard to the granting of copies of informations or indictments to defendants at the public expense. Every court, however, would of course feel it to be a duty that a defendant (who must of course, know the general nature of the charge against him) should be made acquainted with the precise nature of the charges against him contained in any information or indictment on which he was to be tried.
§ The bill was ordered to be printed.