MR. MILES said, that seeing the Secretary for the Home Department in his place, he should put to him the question of which he had given him notice; but, perhaps, it was first necessary for him to state that by the 3 & 4 of Vict. cap. 88, sec. 16, it was imperative upon chief constables of counties to bring before the magistrates at petty sessions a list of local constables recommended by themselves, and on the magistrates appointing such constables, an order was simultaneously made that a scale of fees should be made out for their payment. The Act, however, unfortunately omitted to state how those fees were to be raised, for although in the case of individuals there was no difficulty whatever, in the case of the arrest of thieves or felons there was no fund available for the payment of the fees. He therefore begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether it is his intention to introduce a Bill for the payment of local constables appointed under the Act 3 & 4 Vict., cap. 88, sec. 16, during the present Session ? SIR GEORGE GREY said, it was perfectly true that the Act which authorized the appointment of those local constables did not specify the fund out of which they were to be paid. The Act had been in operation some seventeen years, and he had not up to that time heard of any inconvenience arising under it. The men were strictly speaking not local constables, although generally their employment was of that character, for they could be employed beyond the limits of a county. In case of their being employed, he apprehended they should be paid by the person at whose instance the summons was served or the arrest made. However, he would look into the Act, for at present he must confess he did not see out of what fund the men were to be paid in the cases supposed by the hon. Gentleman. TRAFFIC THROUGH PARK LANE. MR. BAILLIE said, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether, in pursuance of the recommendation of the Metropolitan Improvement Committee of 1855, he has been able to devise any plan for relieving the great increase of traffic which now passes through Parklane, and has become so dangerous to the public? Also, whether there would be any objection to open to the public the road through the park from Stanhope-streetgate to Hyde Park-corner? SIR BENJAMIN HALL said, that the Committee of 1855 had recommended that one of the first openings which should be made for facilitating the traffic of the metropolis should be a road from Piccadilly through Hamilton-place and on to Stanhope-street-gate. In consequence of that recommendation, he, in the course of last year, had proposed to take some steps with the view of carrying it into effect; he had, however, been at once met by an objection to his scheme upon the part of eight or nine persons residing in Hamilton-place. To test the validity of that objection, the case was laid before the law-officers of the Crown, and they had given it as their opinion that it was valid. He had, therefore, been unable to take any further steps in the matter. In reply to the second question, he might state that, in his opinion, there was serious objection to throwing open the road from Stanhope-streetgate to Hyde Park-corner. If it were open for traffic by day, it was equally necessary that it should be open also by night, and the result would be, that the whole of the park would be open by night-a state of things which he felt assured no hon. Member would wish to have brought about. IIe should add, that it was quite obvious that great inconvenience arose from the narrow state of Park-lane, but under the Act of 1855 power was vested in certain local authorities to purchase land, with the view of widening thoroughfares, and if that were done in the present instance he should not hesitate to say that a great improvement would be effected. 1423 Firing on a British Ship {COMMONS} AUDITORSHIP OF THE POOR LAW BOARD-QUESTION. at Belleisle. He 1424 of a French man-of-war the Maratch schooner. A shot was fired at the John MR. CRAUFURD asked the President and Edward to hoist her colours, and her of the Poor Law Board whether the hon. captain sent a man up to reeve the penMember for Boston still continues to hold the nant halyards for the purpose of doing so; office of auditor under the Poor Law Board. but before the man came down another shot MR. BOUVERIE said, the hon. Mem- was fired from the vessel of war, and while the men in the John and Edward were ber for Boston (Mr. W. II. Adams) was one of the auditors of the Poor Law Union achauling up their ensign, and when it was counts. about a couple of fathoms above the boom, He was elected last year, under the operation of an Act of the reign of Her a third shot was fired, which killed one of present Majesty, by the Chairman and the men who were engaged in hauling it Vice Chairman of the Poor Law district in up. He thought the House would agree which he acted as auditor. He was only with him that if these facts were correct one of forty-nine other Poor Law officers-which, however, it was but right to say who discharged duties of a similar charac- were wholly ex parte-["Order!"] ter, and whose appointments were under the had to apologize to the House for going immediate control of the Poor Law Board, beyond the strict rule of asking questions because they were elected in the manner by making this statement, but he thought which had just been stated. The hon. the peculiar nature of the case in some Member for Boston, however, was paid degree warranted his observations. out of money taken by Vote in that House on account of the Poor Law Board, and was liable by statute to dismissal by that Board in the case of his being incompetent to the discharge of his duties. The fact of his having been elected to represent Boston did not, he (Mr. Bouverie) believed, render him incapable of occupying his present position. He consequently retained the office of auditor; and, so far as his experience of the Poor Law Board went, he had every reason to think him a most useful officer. FIRING ON A BRITISH SHIP AT MR. DILLWYN said, he rose to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether IIer Majesty's Government have received any information respecting the circumstances attending the death of James Williams, a seaman on board the John and Edward schooner, of Aberystwith, who was killed in the harbour of Belleisle on the 24th day of May last, by a shot fired from the French war schooner Maratch. He would, if the House would permit him, briefly state the circumstances of this case, as they had come to his knowledge from the reports in the newspapers, and from a letter written by the captain of the schooner. The facts appeared to be these:-On the 24th May the John and Edward schooner, put into the roads of Sarzeau, a small town on the north-east of Belleisle. Having been driven in by stress of weather, she was not prepared with the necessary signals; she brought up and came to an anchor within a cable's length of the stern VISCOUNT PALMERSTON : Sir, Her Majesty's Government have received full information of the lamentable occurrence to which the hon. Gentleman's question relates. The statement he has made con veys to the House pretty nearly the exact John and Edward entered the roads of TENURE OF LAND IN INDIA. RETURN MOVED FOR. MR. W. EWART said, it was his intention to make a Motion on this subject, but as he understood a Motion of a more comprehensive character would be brought before the House in a few days, he would at present simply move for a Return, showing on what tenure land is allowed to be held by Europeans in India, whether in fee simple, for life or lives, or for years; and, if so, for what terms of years, and whether renewable on payment of fines or otherwise; also, a corresponding Return showing to what extent ownership of land or settlement by Europeans has taken place in India, and under what tenures ? French Government were about to institute | tinuing the system in the metropolis beinquiries to ascertain in what way and to came extremely questionable. The queswhat degree they might mitigate the af- tion was by no means new, for the subject fliction of the family of the unfortunate of grand juries had attracted public attenseaman. Therefore, however lamentable tion for many years. A great deal of evithe accident was, and however blameable dence in reference to it was taken before the officer by whom the order was given, the Commission appointed in 1845, to inyet, as far as the French Government are quire into the state of the criminal law, concerned, nothing can be more honourable and afterwards the question of grand juries and proper than the manner of their pro- was again investigated by a Committee of ceeding towards the English Government that House. Observations had since fallen on the subject. from Judges on the bench, complaints had been made by advocates, which had been echoed through the press, and year after year the grand juries of the Central Criminal Court and the Middlesex Sessions had been in the habit of presenting themselves, not only as of no utility, but as being an absolute impediment to the administration of justice. Nor had legislative attempts to abolish the system been wanting, although they were unsuccessful. In 1849, the late Sir J. Jervis brought in a Bill to facilitate the administration of justice in the metropolitan districts, which contained provisions rendering unnecessary the intervention of grand juries in criminal trials. That Bill was referred to a Select Committee, of which he Sir F. Thesiger had been a member, and by which a great number of experienced men had been examined. Amongst others, they examined the Clerk of the Central Criminal Court, the Common Serjeant of that day, Mr. Humphreys, a solicitor practising in the Central Criminal Court, and who had written an excellent pamphlet on grand juries, an alderman of the City of London, the Chairman of the Newington Sessions, and a merchant of the City of London, who had been foreman of grand juries for a great number of years. These witnesses expressed an unanimous opinion that it was desirable that grand juries should not be assembled within the metropolitan districts, and this opinion was supported by reasons which seemed to him to be unanswerable. Nothing, however, was done on this subject. But in the year 1852, the then Recorder of London, whose unfortunate illness was deeply to be deplored, and whose high character and sound judgment it was to be hoped would yet be useful to his country, in a charge to the grand jury of the Central Criminal Court, after considerable experience of the working of this system, spoke in the following terms: Motion agreed to. GRAND JURIES (METROPOLIS.) BILL. LEAVE. FIRST READING. SIR FREDERIC THESIGER, in rising for leave to bring in a Bill to dispense with the attendance of Grand Juries at the Central Criminal Court, and at Courts of General and Quarter Sessions, holden within the metropolitan police district, except in particular cases, said, that in proposing a measure of this kind, he was prepared to expect that those who had not had their attention called to the subject might regard with some apprehension an interference with a venerable institution, which they were accustomed to regard as essential to the fair administration of criminal justice, and one of the most important safeguards of the liberty of the subject. No doubt in its origin the system of grand juries attained these objects, but by recent changes in the criminal law, and an improved system of preliminary investigation of charges in the Metropolitan Police Courts, its usefulness had been consider ably diminished, and the necessity of con the ordinary description, and many of their prede"The great mass of the cases were, as usual, of cessors in that box had expressed an opinion that it was unnecessary that they should be called toge- - why he, a private Member, now brought forward this measure. Ile had not, how ever, presumed to interfere in the matter without previous communication with the Government; and from what had taken place he did not believe that Her Majesty's Ministers were at all dissatisfied with the Motion. On the contrary, he anticipated the cordial support of the law officers of the Crown on that occasion. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL: Hear, hear!] His observations might be supposed to apply to grand juries in general; but he wished it to be understood that he was not prepared to prevent the assembling of grand juries in the provinces. He deemed it advantageous to the public that magistrates and gentlemen of the counties should be asso"The grand jury of the fifth session of the ciated with the Judges in their periodical Central Criminal Court of the year 1852, beg administration of criminal justice throughleave to express their unanimous opinion that a grand jury within the limits of the jurisdiction of out the country. The appointment of a the stipendiary magistrates is wholly unnecessary. public prosecutor or the adoption of some It increases the expense and adds to the delay of improved system of preliminary investigacriminal prosecutions. It affords an opportunity tion into offences might hereafter render it for corruption and for tampering with prosecutors and witnesses. It enables an evil-disposed person necessary to consider the whole subject of to throw his victim into prison by a false ex parte grand juries; but he strictly confined himstatement made behind his back and without any self at present to the case of the metropoliprevious notice. It is, in fact, an instrument of tan district, to which any sound arguments extortion and of oppression, and as it frustrates the ends of justice it is worse than useless, and against grand juries in general would apply ought to be immediately abolished. The grand with peculiar force. It was superfluous to jury having been informed that, presentments to employ any antiquarian research in now disthe same effect have been made by other grand cussing this question. Suffice it to say that juries; that copies of several of these present- grand juries were originally clothed with ments have been laid before the House of Com- the character of public accusers-they preMember for Berwick; that a Committee of the sented crimes to the Justices in Eyre and Ilouse of Commons appointed to investigate the had the power of committing prisoners; subject reported that such a tribunal had become but in the reign of Edward III., when unnecessary; that a Bill was introduced into l'arliament by the present Lord Chief Justice of the justices of the peace were introduced, their Common Pleas, the Right Hon. Sir John Jervis, functions underwent a change. Ultimately, to abolish it, but which Bill was allowed to be instead of possessing any original jurisdicdropped by the late Ministry; they consider that tion, a grand jury became merely a trito suffer its continuance in opposition to the often bunal to receive evidence and decide wherecorded opinions of those best qualified to judge ther there was a prima facie case for of its utility has a tendency to bring into contempt not only the administration of justice, but the sending accused persons to take their trial. laws of the country. The grand jury, therefore, This was a most important duty which request that a copy of this presentment may be could be safely and conveniently superforwarded to the Prime Minister and to the Secre-seded only where a better system had been tary of State for the Home Department of Iler Majesty's new Ministry, and they hope that a Bill provided. This was precisely the case of to abolish the grand jury of the Central Criminal the metropolitan police district, where maCourt and of the Middlesex Sessions, will form agistrates of great experience and legal part of their carliest measures of law reform." talent acted continually in the face of In that year (1852) he (Sir F. Thesiger), the public. Their principal functions as Attorney General under Lord Derby's consisted of receiving charges against Government, introduced a Bill to dispense alleged offenders, and of examining witwith grand juries within the metropolitan nesses in the presence of the accused, who district, but he was compelled to withdraw was confronted with his accusers, and had it in consequence of the dissolution which an opportunity of cross-examining them shortly afterwards took place. These and the rest of the witnesses, and giving facts showed that this question was not any explanation he thought right to offer. a new one, and also furnished the reason After a careful investigation, conducted mons on the motion of Mr. Matthew Forster, the 1 under the most favourable circumstances thrown out the bill against him, owing to for arriving at a correct decision, the ma- the reasons for their decision being ungistrate determined whether there were known to the public. As an illustration sufficient grounds for sending the prisoner of the present system, he thought he could to trial. The depositions originally taken not mention anything more forcible than a were transmitted to the court to which the case which occurred last year in his own offender was committed, and every for- experience. The medical attendant of a mality essential to the protection of the county lunatic asylum, after having been public and to the prevention of unfounded assaulted by a patient, directed him to charges was completed; and one would be taken to a shower-bath, to be kept certainly suppose that, under these circum- there for half an hour, and afterwards to stances, everything had been done that have a dose of tartar emetic. The uncould be required, and that the court might fortunate man was placed in the showerimmediately proceed with the trial. But bath, and after having been kept there another preliminary ceremony had to be for twenty-eight minutes he was removed, gone through before the trial. Twenty- the medicine which had been prescribed three gentlemen, generally unaccustomed was given to him, and in half an hour afterto legal inquiries, were collected together wards he died. He (Sir F. Thesiger) did in a private room, where, with closed doors, not venture to express any opinion with under an oath of secrecy, and in the ab- regard to the conduct of the medical man. sence of the accused, they proceeded to The treatment which he ordered might reinvestigate the very point already deter- have been necessary to his patient; but mined by the committing magistrate- nobody could doubt that that was a subject namely, whether there was a prima facie which ought to have undergone a most case for putting the person charged upon searching public investigation. And so his trial. With nothing to guide them but thought one of the most able, intelligent, the indictment containing the accusation and experienced of the police magistrates and a list of the names of the witnesses (Mr. Henry) before whom the charge was on the back of it, they had to grope their made against the medical man; for, after way in the dark, frequently through a having carefully examined the whole of labyrinth of complicated facts, and this the case, he thought it was his duty to after the whole matter had been decided send the party for trial. The grand jury, for them by the police magistrate. If the however, for reasons which were unknown, grand jury, under these unfavourable cir- chose to think that it was not a case for cumstances, found a true bill their labours inquiry, and they threw out the bill. He were perfectly supererogatory. If, on the (Sir F. Thesiger) could multiply these inother hand, they threw out the bill, their stances if necessary; but he thought that interference was often purely mischievous. the illustration which he had given was Justice in their hands was liable to mis- sufficient to show the mischief which might carry, either from a misconception as to arise from allowing a grand jury to intertheir own functions, some jurymen imagin- fere between the public investigation being that they had to decide on the guilt or fore a magistrate and the trial in the Suinnocence of the accused; or from the perior Court, which was not only a prowitnesses being tampered with and induced tection to the party accused, but also to to suppress the evidence they had pre- the public against the possibility of the viously given when before the magistrates. accused party escaping from justice. But This the witnesses could do in perfect the mere throwing out of bills by grand security, because their examination before juries in such cases was not one half of the grand jury was conducted in secrecy. the evil consequent upon this system within In fact, the grand jury system multiplied the metropolitan district. He believed the chances of escape for the guilty to such that there was hardly a Session of the an extent that it was called " the hope of Central Criminal Court or a Middlesex the London thieves." The innocent would Session held without persons preferring be benefited by the change he proposed, indictments for different classes of misdebecause, after such a person had been meanour for the purpose of revenge or once committed by a magistrate, his inno- extortion. The particular misdemeanours cence would be established in the face of which were generally made the subject of the country if he took his trial; whereas these accusations were conspiracy, perjury, a suspicion would probably still attach to keeping gaming or disorderly houses, and him, even though the grand jury had obtaining money under false pretences. |