Lords Sitting of 20 February 1896

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN.
THE LORD STEWARD OF THE HOUSEHOLD (The EARL, of PEMBROKE)brought up and read the following message from Her Majesty:—
"I thank you sincerely for your loyal and dutiful Address, and especially for your expressions of sympathy with me and my dear daughter, the Princess Beatrice, on the death of my beloved son-in-law, Prince Henry of Battenberg. The assurance of your participation in the general feeling of sorrow for my bereavement has given me very great consolation."

POOR LAW GUARDIANS (IRELAND)(WOMEN) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.—[No. 10.]

EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES BILL.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY), in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, observed that everything he had to say on the subject of this Measure he must have said already at least five times in previous Sessions. The Bill had been repeatedly before their Lordships, and he trusted that at last the effort to bring the law of evidence into a reasonable condition might be successful. The question with which the Bill dealt was looked upon in some quarters rather as a theoretical question, but he thought that those who were obstructing the proposed reform, either actively or passively, ought to remember that this was a matter which affected the happiness of a great number of people from day to day. Under the existing law opportunities of great injustice arose from time to time in our criminal Courts. Within the last month he had received a letter from a most experienced Judge, who said that he believed the state of the law had led to injustice in a case tried before him. There had been a trial in which both of the parties could be and had been heard, and a certain result followed. One of the parties then
682
indicted the other for perjury, and the latter in this case was unable to give evidence under the present anomalous state of the law. Originally the law was logical enough, for nobody that had any interest in a case was permitted to be examined. However, it was felt after a time that it was impossible to allow such a procedure to continue. He remembered the time when agreements for arbitration always contained a provision that the parties should be capable of being examined. But now, in all civil Courts, including the Divorce Court, the parties could give evidence. In criminal cases, however, this was not the case as far as the accused was concerned unless he was charged under a Statute which specially made his evidence admissible. There were some 25 or 30 such Statutes, and so the distinction between civil and criminal procedure in respect of evidence was not universally observed. In this country prosecutions could be conducted voluntarily by anybody in the name of the Queen, and the prosecutor could select a particular form of accusation, and upon the selection made would depend the question whether the person interested could be examined as a witness. He was afraid that his proposed amendment of the law was one of those things which starved under universal praise. Everyone admitted that the present anomalous position of the law was monstrous, and yet every year the anomaly was increased, because, when a new offence was created by statute, it was now invariably provided that the person charged should be capable of being examined on his own behalf. The urgently-needed change which the Bill would effect had been postponed from Session to Session. Their Lordships had always passed the Bill without difficulty; but it had failed to pass through the other House in consequence, he supposed, of the pressure of other business. This alteration of the law had been warmly advocated as many as 18 years ago by the late Mr. Russell Gurney, a Judge of vast experience and ability, whose opinions were regarded with universal respect. He might remind their Lordships that, not very long ago, a man who was convicted on a capital charge challenged the state of the law, and declared that he could have proved his innocence if he had been

683
permitted to give evidence on his own behalf. On more than one occasion the susceptibilities of those who did not wish this change in the law to extend to Ireland had been consulted, and Ireland accordingly had been excluded from the operation of the Measure. But, whether Ireland was included or excluded, the fate of the Bill had heretofore been the same, and the conclusion he had come to was that he must act according to his own judgment as to which was right in the matter. He feared that the inclusion of Ireland would still be unacceptable to some, and that its exclusion would be equally unacceptable to others. He concluded by moving that the Bill be read a Second time.
LORD HERSCHELLsaid this matter had reached a point at which argument was useless. A measure similar to this was first carried through their lordships' House in 1886, and since that date his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack and himself had alternately introduced a Bill of this kind in successive Sessions. The necessity for the Amendment which the Bill proposed to effect had been increased by the changes which had already been made in the law by various statutes. He believed that in the case of every new offence created by statute in the last ten years Parliament had thought right to empower the accused to give evidence. There could be no better proof of the growing conviction that what his noble and learned Friend proposed in this Bill was the right course to take. The present divergence in procedure often rendered the administration of the law very difficult. It depended sometimes upon the particular mode in which an indictment was framed whether the person accused could or could not give evidence, and there had been cases in which it was possible for the accused to give evidence upon one charge in an indictment and not upon another, although the two charges were closely connected, and might be described as but different ways of stating the same offence. Such a condition of the law was intolerable. He felt certain the proposed change would often prevent injustice.
Bill read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

APPEAL COURT OF BENGAL.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYhad the following question on the Paper: To ask the Under Secretary of State for India what steps have been taken to bring the practice of the Appeal Court of Bengal into harmony with the law and the practice of the Appeal Court of the Madras Presidency, by directing the Appeal Court of Bengal to communicate to a lower court the fact of its having reversed a sentence of the lower court, so as to prevent the abuse now existing in cases of persons who have been subject to a criminal charge, and fined by a lower court, and who have obtained a reversal of such sentence from the Appeal Court, of being subjected to some months delay, and to the payment of additional stamps in order to recover the amount of fines wrongfully paid by them. He said that he had reason to believe that the ground of the complaint to which the question referred had now been removed. He desired to tender his thanks to the present Secretary of State for India and his predecessor for the steps which they had taken in the matter.
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The EARL of ONSLOW): I am not aware what authority the noble Lord has for the suggestion that the practice of the High Court of Bengal is not in harmony with the law. I believe it to be a universal rule throughout India that all orders passed in appeal shall be forthwith certified to the Court below. When, therefore, the refund of a fine has been ordered, there ought to be no difficulty in obtaining repayment from the Treasury. Instructions were sent to India some time ago to make inquiries as to the practice obtaining in the various provinces, and to pass such orders as might be found necessary to secure prompt relief in such cases. The Government of India issued a circular on the subject in June last, and the Secretary of State expects to receive their final report shortly.
House adjourned at a quarter before Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.