SECOND READING. (Hansard, 23 May 1867)

§ LORD CRANWORTH,

in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, 933 that it had been introduced into the House of Commons by the right hon. and learned Recorder of London for the purpose of amending the criminal law by restricting the operation of the provisions of the first section of the 22 & 23 Vict. c. 17, which was an Act passed to prevent vexatious indictments for certain misdemeanours, such as conspiracy, obtaining money under false pretences, &c. A few years ago in the then state of the law, prosecutions for certain offences were used as a means of extorting money, and any one might indict in the first instance before a grand jury for conspiracy or obtaining money under false pretences. But that was remedied by the Act to which he referred. That Act obliged the prosecutor in such cases as those to which he referred to go before a magistrate before he preferred any bill before the grand jury. The 1st clause of the present Bill provided that the provisions of the first section of the Act to which he had referred should not extend to prevent the presentment to or finding by a grand jury of any bill of indictment containing a count for any of the offences mentioned in that Act, if such count were such as might now be lawfully joined with the rest of the bill of indictment, and if it were founded, in the opinion of the Court before which the indictment was preferred, upon the evidence disclosed in any depositions taken before a justice of the peace; and that nothing in that Act should prevent the presentment to a grand jury of any bill of indictment if such indictment were presented to the grand jury with the consent of the Court before which the same might be preferred. The 2nd clause provided that where a magistrate had refused to commit and the prosecutor, having indicted before a grand jury, failed to establish the guilt of the person charged, the Court should have the power to order the prosecutor to pay the costs of the accused person in the event of its thinking that the prosecution was unreasonable. The next clause was one which it was most important for the honour of the country should be made the law of the land. In almost all prosecutions the expenses of the witnesses bound over to prosecute were allowed; but it was not so on the part of the defence. Complaint was frequently made by persons charged with indictable offences upon their trial that they were unable from want of means to call witnesses who would prove facts which would establish 934 their innocence; and accordingly the 3rd clause provided that where a person was charged with any indictable offence the magistrate should, before committing him for trial, ask him whether he desired to call any witnesses in his defence; and in the event of his answering in the affirmative the magistrate should take the depositions of such witnesses, who should be bound over to appear to give evidence on the trial, in the same manner as other witnesses, in which case their expenses would, of course, be paid. There were some other clauses of minor importance in the Bill to which he need not refer.