HL Deb 25 March 1895 vol 32 cc2-8
LORD HALSBURY

, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said, that if his only object was to get the Second Reading of the Measure, it would probably be sufficient to mention to their Lordships that it had four or five times previously passed the Second Reading stage, and had three times actually passed through the House. But he really thought the time was come when people should understand what absurd anomalies existed in the law as it at present stood. If their Lordships glanced at the Schedule of the Acts that it was intended to repeal by the Bill, it would be seen that in those different Acts there was a provision which enabled accused persons to give evidence on their own behalf; and matters had now come to this, that it required an education—a special education—on the part of those who presided at criminal trials to know whether or not the persons accused before them were capable of giving evidence or not. He might illustrate what he said by referring to an incident that took place before the Recorder of London. Two persons were indicted for an offence, and each of them desired to call his wife to give evidence in his behalf. They were informed that if the women were their wives, they could not be called, whereupon one of the men said that he was not married to the woman he wished to call, though they had long lived together. On this, the man was judicially informed that this woman could be called to give evidence, and she was called and made a credible witness; but in the other case, as the accused was married, the woman could not be called. That would give some idea of the present state of the law in this respect. Since one of the Bills which he had brought forward had passed their Lordships' House, a very remarkable case had been tried before the Lord Chief Justice. It was a case in which an old man, 80 years of age, named Barber, had been connected in some way with a prospectus issued in reference to the ship Great Eastern. He was charged by means of the prospectus with obtaining money by false pretences; but, probably in consideration of his age, he was sentenced to only a comparatively light punishment—four or five months' imprisonment. But the case arose again, subsequently, in civil proceedings, and the same point on which he was convicted, whether the allegation in the prospectus was a falsehood, once more came up. In this civil proceeding the man was capable of being called as a witness, and, to the satisfaction of everyone, including the learned Judge who tried the cause, he was acquitted by the jury of having obtained money by false pretences, and for the best of reasons—that that which was alleged to be a false pretence was, in fact, true. On that occasion the Lord Chief Justice took the opportunity of pointing out the hardship, the gross injustice, that this old gentleman suffered through the law having prevented him from being called as a witness in the original trial. Whatever was the principle which guided the law originally, he would ask whether it was reasonably possible to maintain the system under which every person indicted under the Acts mentioned in the Schedule to the Bill could be called as a witness, whereas every person who was excluded from them could not. But the question did not quite rest even on that. He had mentioned before, that in this country, unlike many other countries, everybody was entitled to assume to himself the character of the prosecutor, and, assuming that character, unless the Attorney General intervened, he practically framed the charge which should be made against a person. A learned Judge had told him that in his view it was quite possible in such circumstances for a person to take the opportunity of so framing the charge, by varying its legal quality, as to make it incapable for a person proceeded against to be called as a witness. What sense or reason could there be in such a system as that? The present state of the law had been denounced by nearly every person conversant with its administration. The present Bill was almost identical with the others that had preceded it except in one particular—that Ireland was not included in it. For his own part he believed this was a defect in the Bill, but it was a defect in which he willingly acquiesced, because he hoped it would prevent the obstruction which the preceding Bills had met with in the other House. Rightly or wrongly, hon. Members from Ireland had protested against the Bill being passed, and, in deference to their objection, it had been suggested that Ireland should be left out of the measure. Accordingly, he hoped there would be no obstruction to the present Bill, seeing that there was an almost universal desire in this country that every person should have the power to give evidence if he wished to do so. It must not be supposed the Acts to which he had referred were trivial in their character. Some of the Acts which permitted certain persons to be called as witnesses were Acts under which a prisoner might be sentenced to penal servitude for life; but if a person was indicted for murder he could not be called as a witness. A circumstance bearing on this occurred in a case which was tried not long since, and it might a little shock the public conscience—a case in which it was stated that a prisoner about to be sentenced to death for murder declared that he could have proved where he was at the time of the murder if the law had permitted him to be called to give evidence. Without, however, relying on such an incident, the mere fact that a prisoner was now able to say that the law prevented him from proving his innocence, by reason that he was not allowed to give evidence in his own behalf, could not be ignored. He had only one further observation to make. His noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack had a similar Bill before the House last year, and he would gladly leave the further conduct of the present Bill to him if he would undertake it. The reason why he had thought it right to move the Second Reading was, that on the 23rd of July last his noble and learned Friend moved that his Bill should be postponed. He moved, on the contrary, that it should be read a second time, and it was so read, with the acquiescence of the noble and learned Lord. He was not in the least suggesting that the Lord Chancellor was not quite as anxious as he himself was that this Bill should pass; for he believed the views of the noble and learned Lord on the question were identical with his own, but he had thought that, under the circumstances, it would be better for him to move the Second Reading on this occasion. There was a strong feeling that the Bill should be no longer postponed, and he begged to move that it be read a second time.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)

said, he did not propose to argue in support of the Bill. He entirely concurred with what had been said by his noble and learned Friend, and on many previous occasions he had given his reasons for thinking why such a Bill should be passed into law. Personally, he entertained the strongest opinion with regard to it, and nobody could be more anxious than he was to see it become an Act of Parliament. On two previous occasions he had introduced a Bill of this description. During the time his noble Friend was on the Woolsack he, on more than one occasion, introduced such a Bill, and he had himself done so. Having introduced a Bill to carry out that purpose during the present Session, he should, of course, exercise all the influence he possessed to ensure the Bill being passed into law. He was quite satisfied that there was no indisposition whatever on the part of his colleagues to see this Bill become law. There were still some who retained what, in his opinion, were prejudices against the change; but he believed those feelings would disappear as soon as the law came into operation. The possible mischief would, in his judgment, be infinitesimal. He thought, however, there would be an advantage in the Bill being a Government Bill, and that his own Bill would, therefore, have more chance of being passed when it went down to the other House than that of his noble and learned Friend.

*LORD ASHBOURNE

said, he entirely agreed with his two noble Friends in their desire to see a change in the law as suggested by these Bills. But as one interested in the administration of the law in Ireland, he was obliged to express regret at Ireland being excluded from them. Every single argument which had been applied increased, if possible, the case in Ireland's behalf; and, he ventured to think, that there was not a single Judge or any other person interested in the administration of the law in Ireland who would not deplore the omission. Still, he felt the force of what the noble Lord behind him had said, namely, that he had only omitted Ireland from the provisions of the Bill because he felt that was the most expedient way of getting it through the House of Commons. There was a large number of Members from Ireland who deemed it right to oppose this change in the law, so far as their country was concerned, so that by the omission it was sought to conciliate their objections and induce them to remain quiescent during the various stages of the Bill. But there were, it must be remembered, also many Irish Members in the House of Commons representing different opinions in Ireland who would very much feel the omission, and it was not difficult to tell how they would view the matter. There were many earnest advocates of this change; and whilst he should gladly welcome any such change in the law in any portion of the Queen's dominions, he could but deeply regret that it had not been made applicable to Ireland.

*LORD MORRIS

wished to offer his testimony in favour of the Bill. Having had a long experience, however, of the administration of justice as a Judge, and seeing the necessity for such a change in the law as was proposed, he felt rather strongly the omission of Ireland from the Bill, and deplored even more than that omission the reason that had been assigned for it. It was not a reason founded upon any argument—not a reason at all—but a statement that because certain Irish Members in the House of Commons might oppose the Bill, therefore, beforehand, their obstruction was to be acceded to by leaving Ireland out of the Bill altogether. He had often heard objections made as to exceptional legislation for Ireland when the so-called Coercion Act was passed. It was, in fact, a stock argument; but what were they doing now? They were taking an exceptional course by omitting to legislate for Ireland, and by leaving the present law, which was admittedly bad, in exactly the same state while the remedy was being applied to this country. He had heard, on the other hand, that now-a-days legislation should be granted both to Ireland and to England on precisely the same lines—an argument which was always used when there was any question of the extension of the Franchise, and one which was largely used when the Municipal Franchise Bill was before the House of Commons a few days since. In this matter they were simply yielding to a force which ought not to be yielded to; if such a course as was being pursued on this occasion were allowed to continue, it would have the effect of encouraging persons to object to almost everything. He should certainly move in the Standing Committee, if that stage was reached, to leave out the clause exempting Ireland from the operation of the Bill, and if not successful on that occasion he should oppose the Third Reading.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, there was nothing more magnificent than the resolution of his noble Friend that he would never yield to the House of Commons in this matter; the Members of the House of Commons were equally determined never to yield to them, and the result of that was, that for ten years these atrocious anomalies had gone on in spite of all the efforts of that House to prevent them. He thought they might begin with a somewhat lower standard of virtue in view of the practical circumstances of the case. He had an eirenical suggestion to make; they were the happy possessors of a Bill which owned two parents, and he suggested that while the Government Bill which was intended to pass should only apply to England, his noble Friend's Bill should apply to both England and Ireland, and should go down in order to satisfy the feelings of the Irish on both sides of the House, and give them an opportunity of expressing those virtuous opinions which had been referred to.

Bill read 2a.