Lords Sitting of 10 March 1859

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Manslaughter; Indictable Offences (Metropolitan District); Convict Prisons Abroad.
2a Manor Courts, &c. (Ireland).

SINGAPORE—PETITION.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYpresented a petition from the Bankers, Merchants, and Residents at Singapore, in the Straits of Malacca, praying that English interests in those settlements may receive full consideration in the Re-organization of the Executive Government of India. The petitioners expressed the satisfaction with which they had seen the termination of the Indian mutiny, and the transference of the Governor of the Company to the Crown, called attention to the growing importance of the trade between Singapore and Great Britain, which was now greater than that between Singapore and the East Indian possessions. The whole amount, of exports and imports into Singapore exceeded £12,000,000, greater than the whole trade of the Dutch in those seas, and next in importance to Bombay after Calcutta and Madras. They prayed that in consideration of the amount of British capital involved in the settlement of Singapore, with a view to its more efficient protection, and to counteract the encroachments of the Dutch, Parliament would consent to transfer the rule of that settlement from India to the Imperial Government, and that a governor of Singapore and of the Straits Settlements might be appointed, with extended powers similar to those of the Governor of Hong Kong and the Superintendent of British trade in China. and they asked that this Governor should be enabled to negotiate treaties with the Native Powers for the extension of our trade, and to see that our engagements with the Dutch and other Powers in those seas were duly observed. The petitioners considered this imperatively necessary for the safe protection of British trade in the Archipelago. They also called attention to the circumstances under which the settlement of Sarawak, on the mainland of Borneo, and at no great distance from Singapore, had been formed by Sir James Brooke, and begged that the claims of the British residents and settlers in Sarawak might be taken into consideration, and that Sarawak might become one of the British Colonies, or at all events taken under the protection of the British Crown. The noble Lord said that, taking into view the magnitude of the commerce of Singapore, aid its vast increase since it was originally established by the forethought and sagacity of Sir Stamford Raffles, this was a request not hastily to be refused. Singapore was the emporium of all the British trade with

1603
the Indian Archipelago, Java, Siam, and Cochin China. That trade, taking imports and exports together, now amounted annually to £12,000,000 sterling. Singapore was also the port where every steamer or sailing vessel engaged in the trade with China, which was now so greatly on the increase, must pass; the vessels going to the China seas must call at Singapore to obtain their coal or other supplies, and through Singapore must pass every line of electric telegraph that might hereafter be laid down to connect us with any point in the Eastern Archipelago. It should be observed that other European nations were now making great efforts to establish or extend their own settlements in that part of the world; the Dutch were spreading themselves more and more throughout the Indian Archipelago, and endeavouring to exclude the British merchants from a participation in the trade; the French were about to establish themselves in Cochin China, and New Caledonia, and the Spaniards were extending their possessions from the Philippine Islands to the Sooloo Islands and the neighbourhood of Borneo. It was, therefore, most important that a British Governor and Superintendent of Trade furnished with competent authority should be stationed at Singapore to watch the proceedings of foreign nations, and to protect our own interests in those seas. Hitherto the government of Singapore had been under the authority of the Governor General of India. One matter of which the inhabitants of Singapore complained, and not without reason, was, that the place had been made the depôt of the convicts from India; and not only that, but they were obliged to expend large sums for the maintenance of those convicts; and they expressed the gratification which they felt that on a recent occasion the Indian mutineers were not transported to Singapore, as was at first intended, but to the Andaman Islands. He did think that if it were still deemed necessary for India that convicts should be sent to the settlements of Singapore and Malacca, at any rate the expense of maintaining them there ought to fall entirely upon the Indian revenues. He (Lord Stanley) thought it was of great importance that there should be at Singapore an officer, authorized to protect British interests in those seas, and to negotiate treaties with the Native Powers. Another point to which the petitioners called attention was the importance and facility of making Singapore a great naval
1604
arsenal. We had no place in those Indian seas where ships could be repaired or refitted; at Hong Kong, he believed, there was no accommodation for the purpose, but Singapore was admirably adapted for that purpose; it was a place where every vessel on her way must touch, and the port was considered very good, and the absence of storms rendered it a safe anchorage for shipping. He understood that the revenues of Singapore were amply sufficient to pay the expenses of its civil government, though of course the military expenses were another matter; hitherto they had been defrayed by the Indian Government; but if the Government were transferred to a Governor sent from England, it would be a question whether they should not fall upon the Imperial Exchequer. He thought it would be necessary to station a body of European troops there; and as the Navy Commission had recommended that an additional force of 5,000 English marines should be levied, there was no place more suitable for a portion of them than Singapore, where they would protect the great highway of commercial intercourse between India and China, and would be ready, if required, to render valuable assistance on board ship, as there ought always to be a force of gun-boats stationed in the waters of Singapore. He therefore trusted he should receive from Government an assurance that they were not unfavourably disposed to entertain this question of transferring Singapore from the Governor General of India to the Government at home, and appointing a Governor of the Straits Settlements with competent powers. He had also to ask for information of the intentions of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the settlement of Sarawak. He had seen with regret that, in the autumn, a deputation which waited upon Lord Derby with respect to the claims of Sir James Brooke, and with a view to urge that the Government should take possession of that settlement and establish it as a British colony, received very little encouragement, or rather an answer which rendered their request almost hopeless. He would not now discuss the question of establishing a British colony there, or of granting any pecuniary compensation; but British settlers had gone there, British money had been invested there, the Government had established a bishopric there, and missionaries had gone out; and it would be a serious thing if that settlement was to be entirely deserted. The imme-

1605
diate consequence would be that it would be taken possession of by the Dutch; they would extend their dominion over the whole seaboard of Borneo, thus entirely excluding us from the trade of that vast island as well as the rest of the Indian Archipelago from which their intrigue and unjust usurpations had already driven us; but much of which might be regained and preserved by the exertions of an authorized Superintendent of British Trade established at Singapore with adequate power and authority.
THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he quite agreed with the noble Lord as to the great importance of the Straits Settlements and their commercial relations, as the great intermediate station between the East and West, and an emporium where we had a trade now amounting to £12,000,000 or £13,000,000, and where, but forty years ago, Malay pirates were the only inhabitants. Application had been made to Her Majesty's Government by the residents of the Straits Settlements, who requested that the government of those Settlements should be transferred from the Indian Government to the direct control of the Government at home, namely, to the Colonial Office. This was a new fact in the history of the Colonial Office—that a body of European settlers should deliberately and spontaneously come forward and ask to be placed under the management of the Colonial Office. This was a very great contrast to the feelings with which, as must be remembered, the Colonial Office in Downing Street used to be regarded. The Government, however, knowing the existence of that wish amongst many of the English residents, were naturally anxious to accede to it. But a question arose with regard to the expenditure which would be incurred by such a transfer of the Government; and there were some considerations to be taken into account which had made it necessary to obtain the opinion of the Governor General of India, under whose control those Settlements now were. That step had been taken, and an answer was shortly expected, and it unquestionably would be satisfactory to Her Majesty's Government to find that the Report was a favourable one, and that they should he able to find it consistent with the interests of India to bring those settlements under the direct control of the Crown. It was not the occupation of any fresh territories that was contemplated, but rather a change in the distribution of the government. It was necessary, however, that before accepting an impor-
1606
tant change which would entail fresh charges on the Imperial revenue, the Government should consider what prospects there were of providing for it. This matter was under consideration and he was disposed to think, from the growing prosperity of Singapore, that the revenue of the island would be sufficient to meet the expenses of the administration. There was no rule of greater importance than to insist, as far as possible, upon every settlement or colony being self-supporting. It was not fair, on the other hand, that the colony should have to bear any charges of an Imperial nature, and the system of sending convicts there for exclusively Indian purposes, and charging the whole expense of them upon the colony, was one which could hardly be maintained; but there were certain expenses of a local nature which ought fairly to be defrayed by the colonial revenue.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, it appeared that there was a wish on the part of the merchants and inhabitants of Singapore that they should be placed under the immediate superintendence of the Colonial Office. Now if they were to be placed under the authority of any Secretary of State it appeared more reasonable that they should be placed under the Secretary of State for India than under the Secretary for the Colonies. Singapore was no doubt a place of great importance. It was a port to which all troops going out to China necessarily went, and in the event of War in China there must be a Government Commissariat depôt there. The question of erecting batteries and forts had occupied the attention of the Indian Government. Whatever might have been our successes hitherto in war with China, it was impossible not to look forward to some new necessities arising which would compel us to rely upon that place in a future war for such assistance as we had hitherto received from it. The troops to form the garrison must be furnished from India. There must be at least two companies of European artillery at Singapore, which might be sufficient, with a Native regiment supplied from India, to provide for its defence; but it would be at all times desirable that the troops there should be beyond the natural demand of the place itself, on account of the probable demand from China, and there ought always to be one regiment at Singapore available for service in China. He should wish one point to be well considered—the establish-

1607
ment of closed batteries of very heavy guns. The sea was very shallow in that quarter. Indeed it would be very difficult to bring a gun to bear on the usual anchorage there. We had not the power of throwing shot into the place where merchantmen lay. There had, no doubt, been some improvement effected, but still the defences of the place were not what they ought to be. Unless he was much mistaken he had had something to do with the change in the government of the colony. The former system had been extinguished, because it was found to be an enormous job. He could not say that the Indian Government had time to give all the attention that was desired to all the questions appertaining to the interests of the colony. It might indeed be necessary that the affairs of Singapore and the adjoining islands should be placed under a separate Secretary in the Government of India, in order to secure due attention to their interests. The affairs of India were, however, so mixed up with the affairs of Singapore, as the great port in the route to China, that very great difficulties would result if the administration were with-drawn from the Government of India. So far from acquiescing in changing the jurisdiction his disposition would be to extend the power of the Secretary of State for India to Hong Kong. There was no one so interested in the preservation of peace in China as the Governor General of India. The greater part of the commerce of India was commerce with China. The revenue from the trade in opium was derived from China. The great exports of India were those of cotton. The trade did not depend upon the direct exports of British manufactures. The direct exports from England in 1857 amounted only to £2,500,000, whilst the imports into China in the same year amounted to £11,500,000. The whole of that difference was supplied by the exports from India. It would be consistent, in his opinion, with public convenience and advantage to unite under one head—for India—all our concerns in the East connected with the great trade to India. He differed altogether in the opinions expressed by the noble Baron. If the noble Baron would but look a little back he would see that the former Government of Singapore was an enormous job, and that it was put an end to on that account. He took no credit to himself for having, during the short term he was in office, paid especial attention to this sub-
1608
ject; but he was certainly of opinion that it was absolutely necessary that Her Majesty's Government should look carefully into all the bearings of the question before they assented to the change suggested by the petitioners.
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he did not expect when the noble Baron gave notice of his intention of asking a question relative to the existing Government of Singapore, and to suggest the propriety of its being placed under the direct government of the Colonial Office, that he intended to put an equally important question with reference to Sarawak. He hoped the noble Baron would allow him (the Earl of Derby) to defer his answer to a future time, because, although he was then prepared to answer the noble Baron's inquiry generally, he should like to give him a more definite explanation upon the points referred to. The noble Baron was quite correct in saying that he (the Earl of Derby) had not long since received a deputation of gentlemen interested in the navigation and trade of Sarawak. This, however, was by no means a new question. The noble Baron knew there was nothing very novel in it. Some new facts had been brought before the Government, which were still under consideration; and among other difficulties which beset the case, one was the strong doubt that existed whether Sir James Brooke had any right to dispose of Sarawak. It was now believed that the coal of Labuan was more accessible than that of Sarawak. It appeared that Sarawak had been the principal coal depôt in that part of the world. The latest attempts, however, to increase the supply of coal had resulted in failure, and the coal of Labuan had been found to be superior.
EARL GREYsaid, at the time when Sir James Brooke first went out it was distinctly understood that it would be the policy of the Government that there should be no territorial settlement on the mainland of Borneo:—we knew very well by experience that if such settlements were established—if British power was once founded on a small part of a great territory—that that kind of dominion had an inevitable tendency to spread further and further. It invariably happened that in our relations with those barbarous Eastern Princes they entered lightly into treaties and broke them equally lightly. We thus got involved in difficulties by engagements of that kind, since we were compelled either to submit to the dishonour of allowing them to be

1609
broken, or else to punish the violation of treaties by hostility in which we were drawn on little by little to a very inconvenient extent, and entailing perhaps a heavy burden on the country. No man admired more than he did the character of Sir James Brooke, and no one had taken a greater interest in the success of his enterprize; but when it was agreed in 1846 that the Government of the day was to give him assistance and support, the arrangement was to the effect that we were to take possession of Labuan as a separate colony, which might be useful for commercial purposes, and which, from being a small island, was not likely to entangle us in private quarrels. But with respect to Sarawak, it was most distinctly understood that Her Majesty's Government was to have no concern whatever, and that Sir James Brooke was to act entirely as a private individual. The Government was only to assist him so far as to prevent piracy on those coasts—which in the general interests of commerce it could properly undertake to do. Beyond that protection against piracy, it was understood that Sir James Brooke had no other claim on the services of the Government. He believed that it was sound policy to adhere to that understanding. He (Earl Grey) wished to see a native State established there, and under Sir James Brooke there was a fair prospect of the spread of civilization in that country; but he did not think it was British dominion, or that British dominion should be extended to those regions. He quite concurred in the present petition as to the extreme importance of Singapore. He thought its interests should be watched over by the Government; but he hoped great caution would be observed in extending the power of the Governor of that settlement to enter into treaties with native Powers. The whole of his (Earl Grey's) experience led him to the conclusion that nothing was more dangerous than to enter into diplomatic relations with those barbarous Powers; and he thought the Governor of Singapore ought not to be entrusted with powers of that kind, except under very stringent restrictions.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that all he wished to ask from the Government was, what was to be done to protect British interests in Borneo? He was glad to hear that it was in contemplation to appoint a Governor with greater powers at Singapore.
Petition to lie on the table.

INDICTABLE OFFENCES (METROPOLITAN DISTRICT) BILL—GRAND JURIES.

  BILL PRESENTED—FIRST READING.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORrose to call the attention of the House to the question of criminal charges and presenting indictments to grand juries in the metropolitan police districts. He said that a few evening since, when his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chief Justice of England, moved the second reading of his Bill for the prevention of vexatious indictments, he (the Lord Chancellor) expressed his entire concurrence in the principle of the Bill, but said that he thought it did not go far enough. His noble and learned Friend, acting on his experience with respect to certain classes of misdemeanours, in which the system of grand juries was made use of for purposes of extortion and oppression, proposed that parties charged with these offences should not be put on their trials without preliminary examination before a magistrate. He (the Lord Chancellor) could state from his own experience that in various other criminal charges, beyond those stated by his noble and learned Friend, grand juries were made use of for purposes of extortion. He expressed his opinion the other night that it ought not to be in any one's power to bring any charge against any person by means of a secret tribunal. He thought that in the metropolitan districts, at least, there should in every case be a preliminary inquiry before a magistrate. But he then said, that if it was so determined, it would be necessary to inquire whether there need be any further preliminary inquiry before a party was put on his trial. As far as he understood the feeling of their Lordships they concurred, and he had accordingly turned his attention to the subject, and had prepared the bill which he now offered to the House. The first subject to which he had directed his attention was this. The Bill of his noble and learned Friend applied to a scandalous abuse of grand juries, by persons going behind the backs of others, accusing them of offences, and converting that tribunal into an engine of extortion. He (the Lord Chancellor) proposed in his Bill that the object of the Lord Chief Justice's Bill should be confined cases to which only it proposed to apply it, but should be extended to all criminal charges. His noble and learned Friend had mentioned cases of persons who had used grand juries for the purposes of malice and extortion, and he (the Lord Chancellor)

  1611
  had mentioned other cases. He thought it contrary to the spirit of our laws, that charges should be made in secret, and that any person should be put on his trial without knowing who was his accuser, who were the witnesses, and what was the distinct charge against him. He proposed in his Bill that no charge against a person in respect of an indictable offence should be preferred or tried at the Central Criminal Court or at any General or Quarter Session within the metropolitan police district, unless the charge had been previously investigated by a police magistrate or a justice of the peace. If that part of his Bill were accepted the next step was almost inevitable, for he could not believe that their Lordships would agree that all criminal charges should be subjected to previous inquiry before a magistrate, and that after that any other preliminary inquiry should interpose between the trial. It was hardly possible to believe that in a civilized country, and with the enlightened ideas we were supposed to possess, such a system of criminal justice could exist to the present time. We had in the metropolis a body of magistrates of great legal experience, accustomed to dealing with evidence, sitting daily in open court to examine into all criminal charges preferred; the accused was brought face to face with his accusers; he heard the witnesses, who were open to cross-examination, and was allowed to make any explanation or defence he chose; if there was any doubt or difficulty the magistrate did not decide in haste, but adjourned the case for further inquiry; and all this was done, not to inquire into the guilt or inocence of the party accused, but only whether there were sufficient grounds for sending him for trial. The depositions were prepared with great care; they were read over to the witnesses in the presence of the accused, were signed, and sent to the court where the trial was to take place. The Judges were assembled, and one would suppose that everything had been done preliminary to the trial; but before that could take place, the case was filtered through another tribunal in order that it might be presented to the court for trial. The grand jury assembled—an irresponsible body—in a secret chamber were sworn to secrecy, the accused was not brought before them, the witnesses were called in one by one, and all this was done to ascertain if the magistrate had judged rightly in sending the party accused for trial. It was not to be wondered at that, under such an arrangement, many
  1612
  bills should be ignored, to the astonishment of the committing magistrates and of the parties themselves, because it afforded ample opportunities for tampering with the evidence. A witness might suppress or vary facts which he had sworn to before the magistrate, or suggest doubts and difficulties sufficient to induce the grand jury to throw out the Bill; and there was no fear of an indictment for perjury, because the proceedings before the grand jury were secret. But if the case went direct from the magistrates to the court, it was impossible for any witness, without danger to vary his evidence, as he would be corrected by the depositions. He was told that Mr. Clark, the late Clerk of Arraigns at the Central Criminal Court, used to call the grand jury the hope of the London thief. A pamphlet had been lately published by a gentleman of great experience, who gave a list of the bills ignored by the grand jury at the Central Criminal Court in six months in 1852. They were twenty-two in number, and he gave the evidence relating to twelve of them, which showed that the party accused ought to have been put on his trial, and that a conviction ought to have ensued. In a case which he mentioned to their Lordships on the previous occasion the grand jury threw out the bill, and a fresh one was sent up either to that or another grand jury, which was found, and the accused pleaded guilty. He (the Lord Chancellor) would now refer them to a case which had occurred in his own experience, and which was familiar to the noble Earl near him (the Earl of Shaftesbury). Two or three years ago a patient in a lunatic asylum near London struck the medical officer, who ordered him to be placed in a shower-bath for half-an-hour, and after that that a dose of tartar emetic should be administered to him; and then the medical officer left the asylum for the day. The patient was placed in the shower bath for twenty-eight minutes, was taken out shivering, the medicine was administered, and in ten minutes after he died. He (the Lord Chancellor) was consulted by the Commissioners of Lunacy, and he expressed a strong opinion that they would not discharge their duty unless a public inquiry took place. That inquiry did take place, before one of the most able and careful of the police magistrates, Mr. Henry, who came to the determination to send the case for trial. The matter had made a great impression on him (the Lord Chancellor), because he came from a considerable dis-

  1613
  tance to conduct the prosecution. There was no doubt on the minds of any one concerned but that the case would come on, but, to the astonishment of every one, the grand jury threw out the bill. He made no remark on the innocence or guilt of the party implicated, but it was a case for inquiry, and if the individual was innocent, as he was bound to presume he was, it would have been more satisfactory to him if he could have proved his innocence by a public trial, than to have had the inquiry thus stopped short. The grand juries themselves in the metropolitan district had been from time to time so satisfied of their helplessness and uselessness, that they had been in the habit of "presenting" themselves as useless at various sessions of the Central Criminal Court, hoping that a measure for their abolition, which would be for the benefit of the public, would be introduced; but latterly, finding no prospect of such a measure being brought forward, they have ceased to present. These presentments were generally to the effect that the labours of grand juries were unprofitable; that the time had arrived when they ought to be done away with; that in the preliminary inquiry before a magistrate there was ample opportunity for securing a due administration of justice, and that that inquiry superseded the duty of grand juries, which were worse than useless, and ought to be abolished as bringing the administration of justice and the law of the land into contempt. He was anxious to give their Lordships not only his own experience, but that of men more practically acquainted with the subject, and he would refer to a charge delivered by Mr. Stuart Wortley, when Recorder of London, in which he said that with regard to the cases which had undergone preliminary inquiry, he concurred with the grand jury in thinking that their services in that district were useless, caused loss of time, increased the expense of prosecutions, and enabled persons to cause injustice by tampering with witnesses and preferring unfounded charges against innocent persons. He would quote another authority—that of Lord Denman, who was not one likely to give up anything which was connected with the liberty or protection of the subject. Lord Denman said that it was difficult to see the effect and use of the functions of the grand jury; for when they found a bill they only echoed the decision of the magistrate; and if they differed from him and ignored a bill, that could
  1614
  not clear suspected character, and might do irreparable injustice. There were other evils attendant on the system of grand juries in the metropolitan district. Every session a great many witnesses, prosecutors, and friends of accused persons, assembled at the Central Criminal Court, and it was calculated that about 1,000 persons of all ages and sexes were gathered together at each sitting of the Court. There was no accommodation provided for them; it was uncertain when their cases were to come on, and they had to attend day by day. Evidence was given by the present Lord Mayor before a Committee of the House of Commons as to the demoralizing effect of such a congregration of so many persons of perhaps indifferent character, and it was easy to imagine what the position of respectable persons who were prosecutors was in such an assemblage. When a bill was found by the grand jury, it was still uncertain when the case would come on, and the parties connected with it must remain. The expense of prosecutions was thus made enormous, and though that alone was not a sufficient reason for getting rid of grand juries, yet it was worthy of attention as showing a way in which a considerable saving might be effected. If informations only were required, arrangements might be made to prepare lists of cases for different days, and the parties need only attend on the days when their cases were likely to come on. All this he thought would satisfy their Lordships that what he was about to propose was very desirable. By the second clause it was provided that when a party was committed, or bound over on his recognizances to appear to take his trial, by a magistrate at the Central Criminal Court, or within the metropolitan police district, no indictment shall be preferred or found in respect of such charge; but the officer of the Court shall file an information charging the person with the offence, which information shall be in lieu of an indictment found by a grand jury to all intents and purposes, and shall be followed by all its consequences. The result of this arrangement would be, that solicitors would know exactly the position of the different cases in the list, and that all the parties concerned would know on what day to attend. Various attempts had been made to effect a change in the present system. In 1846, when he (the Lord Chancellor) was Attorney General, he made a

  1615
  report to the Home Office on the criminal law generally, in which he recommended that grand juries should be abolished in the metropolitan districts. In 1849, a Bill was brought in by the Government of the day for the same purpose, and a Select Committee of the House of Commons was appointed to inquire into the subject. Six witnesses were examined—men of great practical experience—namely, Mr. Clark, the Clerk of Arraigns at the Central Criminal Court; Mr. Humphreys, an attorney of great experience in criminal cases; Mr. Alderman Wire, the present Lord Mayor; Mr. Mirehouse, the then Common Serjeant; Mr. Puckle, Chairman of the Surrey Sessions; and Mr. Bennoch, a merchant of London; who all gave the strongest possible evidence in favour of
  the abolitiou of grand juries. The Bill, however, was dropped. In 1852, when he (the Lord Chancellor) was again Attorney General, he brought in a Bill for the same purpose, which failed in consequence of a change of Government. In 1857. with the sanction of the late Government, he introduced a similar measure, but owing to the press of public business he was unable to proceed with it. Under these circumstances he hoped that their Lordships would agree that there was no proposition involved in his measure which had not been maturely considered, and which was not desirable. Provision was made in the Bill for cases where parties were committed and bound over to take their trial; but he had further to provide fur the fears of a noble and learned Friend (Lord Wensleydale), who was of opinion that it was the right of every subject to put the criminal law in force according to the established law. He (the Lord Chancellor) did not altogether adopt that doctrine, but it appeared to him to be one of the strongest arguments against the establishment of a Public Prosecutor he had ever heard. He was aware that the Lord Chief Justice considered that when the evidence before the magistrate was not sufficient to justify the committal of the accused, the accuser should have the opportunity of applying to a Judge or some other tribunal in order to put the party upon his trial, if sufficient evidence could be adduced. He had provided for such cases, and he trusted that he had, in the measure as it stood, met all objections, and he might almost say all prejudices. He did not propose to dispense
  1616
  with grand juries altogether, but the fourth clause provided that when the magistrate thought there was not sufficient evidence to warrant the putting the accused person on his trial, the party bringing the accusation might prefer an indictment at the Central Criminal Court, or other Court, and the same proceedings should be had thereon as was now the law in similar cases; provided he gave notice in writing to the magistrate who had heard the case his intention to do so within two days, and also gave notice of the Court to which he intended to carry the case. There would be no great inconvenience in such a course, as the accused would know who was the prosecutor and who were the witnesses. Then he proposed that the grand jury of the Central Criminal Court should assemble three times a year, and that the grand juries at quarter sessions four times a year, when charges of this nature should be received and determined. He further proposed, that upon the notice being given the depositions should be sent to the Court, before which the trial was to take place, and if any indictment in respect of such charge be preferred to the grand jury, the officer of the Court is to deliver to them these depositions. These were the general provisions of a Bill which he thought would accomplish important objects. It would get rid altogether of secret accusations—it would get rid of the absurdity of a second imperfect investigation of a charge after a complete, full, and satisfactory examination before the magistrate—and it would provide for what some persons thought the accuser ought to have—namely, the opportunity of going before a grand jury, and pressing his accusation in cases where the magistrate considered the evidence insufficient.
  Bill to make better Provision concerning the Procedure against Persons charged with Indictable Offences within the Metropolitan Districts presented.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYgave their Lordships an illustration of his own personal experience of the uselessness and inconvenience of the system proposed to be remedied by the noble Lord on the woolsack. On one occasion he had his pocket picked, but he gave chase to the light-fingered fugitive, captured him and introduced him to the Rhadamanthus at Marlborough Street, where the whole case was fully investigated, and the case sent for trial by the magistrate; but notwithstand-

  1617
  ing that, he was compelled to be two days in attendance at Clerkenwell Session-house, waiting the deliberation and decision of the grand jury; and, after all, the operation of finding a true bill did not occupy five minutes. Had he not been an idle person, but a man engaged in urgent business, the inconvenience and loss of time would have been exceedingly great. Nothing, moreover, could be worse than the accommodation given, for he and the public had to pace about on the cold stones, and there was not the accommodation of even a single seat.
  LORD CRANWORTHexpressed his entire concurrence in the measure propounded by the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack. He had two days ago received a letter from a person with whom he was not acquainted, but who appeared to be an intelligent person, suggesting, with reference to the Bill of the Lord Chief Justice, that it might be the proper occasion to remove what the writer considered an anomaly, involving an unnecessary expenditure of public money, of presenting indictments in cases of manslaughter and murder after a coroner's inquest had been held. He thought that his correspondent was mistaken on that point, and that there might be a difficulty in laying it down that the inquest by the coroner should be the only preliminary charge on which the accused person should be tried. It often happened that very valuable evidence was given after the coroner had held his inquest.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORwould turn his attention to the point, but observed there was a clause in the Bill which exempted proceedings upon coroner's inquisitions, when a verdict of murder or manslaughter has been found. The Act also was not to affect ex-officio informations by the Attorney General, or the jurisdiction of the Court of Queen's Bench.
  LORD WENSLEYDALE,while admitting that some alteration of the law was desirable, thought the rights of prosecutors to put the criminal law in force should be preserved; but the clause introduced by his noble and learned Friend removed much of the objection he had expressed on a former occasion upon that point. He regarded the grand jury as a constitutional and a useful institution, and should be sorry to see it abolished in all cases.
  Bill read 1a.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.