The Sun.
London, England, 1854-05-17 00:00:00

GRAND JURIES.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.

SIR, —A bill is introduced into Parliament, the pre-
amble of which, with other reasons, says " the time of
grand juries would be saved."
The best and most effectual mode of saving the time
of grand juries would be to abolish the system, because
of its being a "grand farce," and seriously prejudicial to
the ends of public justice. When magistrates have care-
fully examined into a case (whether it be of a great or
small nature) and placed it in the ordinary course for
trial before a petite jury, why have a grand jury to go
over the ground which the committing magistrate has
already done ; for that is the only function they have to
perform? A magistrate has full opportunity of examin-
ing into all circumstances and facts, and is sufficiently
competent to judge whether it is necessary to send the
charge for trial, and when he has done so it is sheer
nonsense for a grand jury to be occupying and wasting a
vast amount of their own time, and that of others ;
because, when that is done, facts and circumstances
cannot be arrived at, as they are before the examining
magistrates. How many thieves have escaped punish-
ment because of the grand jury not being in pos-
session of material points which are arrived at
before the committing magistrate, sometimes through
witnesses forgetting to state those points, and at other
times having been tampered with between committal
and going before the grand jury. A pettifogging lawyer,
who gets the defence of a prisoner, always sets his
"Touts" to tamper with a material witness, or instructs
the friends of the prisoner how to act, so as to accom-
plish the suppression of any main point from the know-
ledge of a grand jury.
Many years' experience in criminal law practice has
convinced me of the inutility, and I may add the mis-
chievous consequence, of the grand jury system ; and
whilst the bill I have named is passing through its
ordeal in Parliament, I would earnestly recommend our
legislators to carefully peruse a work by Mr. Foot, an
eminent barrister, entitled "Grand Juries: Reasons for
their Abolition."—Your obedient servant,
May, 1854. A MAGISTRATE'S CLERK.

... ..... .«

21 -2! pi

9 9
8§ 9
id pay

130 132
1.1 - lid

93 - 95

i 1- -6

94 15 10
i -
1 6i
11 - 13
id- P

22i - 221
98 - 700
15 -20

IMPERIAL PARMIAIENT.

2 - 1-d

87 - 92
3 - 30
1} - id

8S 9i

HOUSE OF LORDS—(YESTERDAY.)
BOUNDARY SURVEY (IRELAND) BILL.
On the motion of Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY
this bill was read a second time.
BENEFICES AUGMENTATION BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
DEVONPORT AND KEYHAM TUNNEL (No. 2)
BILL.

1} 11
I
A d ip
1 1 d
1 2
----- 10
* i
6 8
4A 41
24 3
29 31

li i

40 42
i 1i
10 12
50 60x.d
2 4u,

1/ - 2f
.1
7- I

1 - 14

to -- 11

' - i
P 6
= 1

-
15i - 1
-
29 -

8 - 11

* -
2 --

a
#

* -

1 7 i

ti i
21
291

BANKS.

73 - 75

I-

11 - 1d

5 4 d,

On the motion of Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY
this bill was read a third time.

2 - 101

TAXES ON LAW PROCEEDINGS.
Lord BROUGHAM brought under the consideration
of the house the subject of taxes or fees upon proceedings
in the courts of law. The noble and learned lord alluded
principally to the amount of fees charged in the county
courts, mentioning that, upon an average of the years
1852-53, they amounted to 261,0001., being 171 per cent.
upon the sums sued for, and upwards of 30 per cent. on
the sums recovered by judgment. In the superior courts
the fees paid amounted to only 50,0001. a year. Com-
plaining of the injury which such a state of things in-
flicted upon the county courts, by reducing the amount
of business brought to them, he vindicated the principle
of all law taxes, being defrayed, not by suitors, but by
the public, out of the Consolidated Fund. In conclu-
sion, the noble and learned lord moved a series of seven
resolutions, embodying the principles he had enunciated.
The LORD CHANCELLOR concurred in most of
the views of Lord Brougham, but he doubted whether
the present was an opportune moment for changing the
existing system, and he expressed an opinion that it
would be inexpedient to pledge the house to abstract re-
solutions on such a subject. The State was bound to
supply tribunals ; but the suitor in the wrong ought to
contribute also to the maintenance of the judicial sys-
tem. The whole subject, however, should receive the
consideration of the Government as soon as the County
Court Commission had made their report, with the view
of removing the existing inequalities between different
courts. Under these c►rcumstances, he recommended
the noble and learned lord to withdraw the resolutions.
After a few words in reply from Lord BROUGHAM, the
resolutions were negatived.
Their lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—(YESTERDAY.
SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES.
In reply to Mr. MACARTNET,
Mr. WILSON said it was impossible yet to state what
the amount of the supplementary estimates for the com-
missariat expenses of the war might be. When they were
prepared they would be laid upon the table.
VOTE BY BALLOT.
Mr. H. BERKELEY gave notice that on this day month
he should move for leave to bring in a bill to protect the
voter of the ballot.
NEWSPAPER STAMP DUTY.
Mr. MILNER GIBSON rose to call the attention of the
house to what he alleged to be the present unsatisfactory
state of the law affecting the press, and to move the fol-
lowing resolution :—" That it is the opinion of this house
that the laws in reference to the periodical press and
newspaper stamp are ill-defined and unequally en-
forced ; and it appears to this house that the sub-
ject demands the early consideration of Parliament." The
right hon. gentleman excused himself for bringing for-
ward the question in the absence of the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, on the ground that it referred, not to
finances, but to the state of the law. The duty of
bringing the subject under the consideration of the house
devolved on him in consequence of having been chairman
of a committee of the house on the question of news-
paper stamps, which came to a resolution which de-
clared that there were abuses incident to the present
system of the Newspaper Stamp Law, arising from the
difficulty of determining the meaning of the word "news"
The resolution which he intended to move on this occasion
was not a mere abstract proposition. It asserted two facts
—namely, that at the present time the law relative to the
press was ill-defined ; and, secondly, that the Executive did
not enforce the law such as it was with impartiality. Should
the house adopt the resolution, it would indicate the opi-
nion of the house that the Government should bring in a
measure for the purpose of defining the law, and also in-
struct their officers to enforce the law with impartiality.
The financial aspect of this question, in reference to the
newspaper stamp, was insignificant, compared with other
considerations connected with it. Instead of treating this
question as merely one of law, ho might have taken higher
ground, and it would have been easy to show that a cheap
press and the dissemination of useful knowledge would
have an important influence in extendiag the work of edu-
cation. This view of the subject could be supported by
the most recent Parliamentary authority—namely, the re-
port of Mr. Horace Mann on the state of education in Eng-
land and Wales. In that document Mr. Mann states that
although much was being done in respect to providing cheap
liters tore, yet a vast deal more remained to be accomplished
especially iu the ii epartment of cheap newspapers, an abun-
dance of which, he thought, would do more to assist edu-
cation than millions spent in elementary schools without
inducements to the people to attend them. Past experience
taught him that the question of which he was the advocate
would be met in a fair and liberal spirit by members on
either side of the house. It was not a party question. When
Lord Derby was at the head of the Government he (Mr.
Gibson) accompanied a deputation to the noble lord to
urge the abolition of the stamp duty on newspapers. On
that occasion Lord Derby said ho could not be expected to
enter into all the details of the question, but there was
one thing which had been clearly established—namely,
that the law was not in a satisfactory position. His lord-
ship also declared that, whatever the law might be, it
ought to be impartially enforced, and that his Government
felt no disinclination to the spread of knowledge. The
proposition which he now asked them to approve was only
that the law was at present unsatisfactory, that it ought
to be made simple, and that it ought to be enforced ; and
therefore he earnestly begged hon. gentlemen not to con-
skier what his opinions might be, what theories might be
entertained on the general subject of cheap newspapers,
but to ask themselves whether any reasonable objection
could be wade to the wording of the resolution. He would
now proceed to demonstrate—first, that the law was ill-de-
fined; and secondly, that it was not equally enforced. The
house would recollect that some time since a prosecution
had been commenced against the publishers of a work of
Mr. Charles Dickens, called the Household Narrative of Cur-
rent Events, for the purpose not of inflicting a penalty, but
of ascertaining whether by law the Government had the
right to put down such publications. He had said on that
occasion that if the law was doubtful they ought to bring in
a bill to settle it, and to let the world know what they
might and what they might not do. (Hoar, hoar.) His ad-
vice was not acted on, and the prosecution was taken into the
Court of Exchequer, when a majority of 3 to 1 of the
1 judges decided against the Government, and held that the
publication was not a newspaper in the eye of the law.
The Government were again urged to bring in a bill so as