The Sun.
London, England, 1859-03-11 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS-(YESTERDAY).

The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack
at five o'clock.

The Earl of SHAFTESBURY presented a petition from
Rugby against the opium traffic ; and also from Kingsheaton,
Praying that Dissenters might not be excluded from the
administration of trust funds of grammar schools.
OCCASIONAL FORMS OF PRAYER BILL.
This bill passed through committee without amendment

MANOR COURTS (IRELAND) BILL.
On the motion of the Earl of DONOUGHMORE this
bill was read a second time.
SINGAPORE.

Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY presented a petition
from the bankers, merchants, and other re-idents at Singa-
pore, in the Straits of Malacca, and asked her Majesty's
Ministers what their intentions were with regard to the
future government of that settlement. The petitioners
prayed that more efficient protection might be accorded
them from the encroachments of the Dutch, and
that some authorised governor should he established there
who might have the power to enter into treaties with
foreign states. The noble lord said the French were esta-
blishing themselves in Cochin-China, and several other
Powers were obtaining territory in Indian waters, and it was
therefore absolutely necessary that this country should have
a competent agent at Singapore, to protect the extensive
trade of the settlement. He trusted he should receive a
favourable answer from the Government to the demands of
the petitioners.
The Earl of CARNARVON quite agreed with the noble
lord as to the importance of these trade settlements. A de-
spatch had been sent to the Governor-General of India
on the subject, and on the answer to that communication
the conduct of her Majesty's Government would be guided
in a great measure. The petitioners wished her Majesty's
Government to undertake this fresh responsibility, but be-
fore they did so it was their duty to ascertain
whether the new dependencies would entail additional ex-
penses on the revenues of this country.
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH thought the best
authority under which the settlement of Singapore could
be placed was the Secretary of State for India, and not
of the Colonial-office. In the event of a military, force
being required at Singapore, the troops would be drawn
from India, so that communication would be constantly
going on with that country. The noble lord opposite said
that Singapore was of great importance as a naval station,
but the Straits of Malacca were so shallow that it was
next to an impossibility to take large ships there. Ha was
glad the subject had been brought under the consideration
of their lor&hips ; but, before any definite measures were
adopted, he trusted the subject would be well considered.
The Earl of DERBY said proposals had been made to
the Government with respect to the settlement of Sarawak
being placed under the protection of the Colonial-office, but
he had himself great doubts as to whether Sir James
Brooke had any right to make the' offer. It had been
said that coal was plentiful at Sarawak, but it had been
discovered in another quarter much better, and more easily
procured.
Earl GREY said he should be glad to see a proper native
State in Borneo, but he did not think anyadvitiatage would
accrue to that place or Sarawak by placing it under the
protection of the Colonial-office.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY said it was satisfac.
tory to know that the Government would take into its con
eideration the propriety of appointing a governor to Sin
gapore

CRIMINAL CHARGES.

The LORD CHANCELLOR rose to call attention to the
question of presenting indictments for criminal champs to
grand juries in the metropolis. He said he had on the
second reading of the bill of his noble and learned friend
the Chief-Justice en the subject of vexatious indictments,
expressed his entire concurrence in its principle, though he
did not think it went sufficiently far. His noble and
learned friend, acting on his experience with regard to a cer-
tain class of misdemeanours being made use of through
grand juries for purposes of oppression and extortion, pro-
posed by his bill that in those particular instances the par-
ties should not be put upon their trial until they had under-
gone a preliminary examination before magistrates. He
(the Lord Chancellor) could state there were various other
cases which were constantly made use of by means of grand
juries for purposes of extortion. He had expressed his opi-
nion the other night that there was no reason why any cri-
minal charges should be preferred in secret, and suggested
that at least within the metropolitan police district a preli-
minary inquiry before a magistrate should be required in Ali
cases. At the same time he entertained a doubt as to whether
. any other preliminary inquiry was necessary in cases which
had been investigated by a magistrate. He had accordingly
prepared a bill which extended to all criminal charges
within the metropolitan district. It was contrary to the
spirit of our laws that charges should be made in secret,
without the party accused having the means of knowing
before his trial who were his accusers, who were the wit-
nesses, and what was the distinct charge against him. If
the first part of the bill was accepted, then the next step
was inevitable, for it would be monstrous to require that all
criminal charges should be investigated before a magistrate,
and that after he had decided there were grounds for a trial
by a jury that there should be another preliminary inquiry
by a grand jury. The police magistrates in London were a
body of able, experienced gentlemen, who had received a
legal education, who had the accused parties before them,
heard the evidence in open court, drew up written deposi-
tions, which the' witnesses signed, and then determined
whether there were grounds for sending the accused party
for trial. It would naturally be expected that there was
nothing to prevent that trial taking place at the proper time,
but before that could happen the case had to be filtered through
a grand jury, composed of persons probably inexperienced in
legal matters, sitting in apnvate room, not having the accused
before them ; examining the witnesses separately, and sworn
to secrecy themselves upon all that passed within the jury-
room. It was not to be wondered at that, under such an
arrangement, many bills should be ignored, to the astonish-
ment of the committing magistrates and of the parties them-
selves, because it afforded ample opportunites for tampering
with the evidence. A witness might suppress or vary facts
which he had sworn to before the magistrate; and there
was no fear of an indictment for perjury, because the pro-
ceedings before the grand jury were secret. The late Mr.
Clark, who was for many years Clerk of the Arraigns at the
Old Bailey, used to call the grand jury the "hope of the
London thief." He (the Lord Chancellor) had, on a for-
mer evening, instanced a case where, a bill having been
ignored by the grand jury, a second bill was prepared, and
found by the same jury. There was another case of which
he had personal knowledge, which happened two or
three years ago, which showed the operation of
the system. In that case a patient in a lunatic
asylum near London struck one of the medical officers,
who ordered him to be placed in a shower bath for
half-an-hour, and then to receive a dose of tartar emetic.
The surgeon, having given those orders, left the asylum.
The patient was placed in the shower bath, and kept there
for 28 minutes, at the end of which time he was taken out
shivering, and the prescribed dose of tartar emetic was ad-
ministered to him. Within ten minutes from the time of
quitting the bath the man died. He (the Lord Chan-
cellor) was consulted by the Lunacy Commissioners, and
expressed a strong opinion that they ought to institute
an inquiry into the subject. An inquiry did take place
before one of the ablest London magistrates, who, after a
careful investigation, came to the conclusion that the case
should be sent for trial. At the proper time all was pre-
pared for the trial, when, to the astonishment of all it
was announced that the grand jury had thrown out the bill.
No one could say that that was not a case which demanded
inquiry and a trial; and if the surgeon were innocent, as he
(the Lord Chancellor) was bound to believe, it would have
been much more satisfactory to him if his innocence had
been established in the face of day by a public trial. (Hear,
hear.) Grand juries themselves in the metropolitan police
district had from time to time been satisfied of their use-
lessness, and until recently they were in the habit of "pre-
senting" themselves as unnecessary and useless at the various
sessions of the Central Criminal Court, hoping that some
steps would be taken to put an end to the system. Their
own time as well as that of a large body of witnesses and of
other persons was, they said, most unprofitably occupied ;
the searching investigation now afforded at the police-courts
appeared to afford ample security for the impartial adminis-
tration of justice, and the duties of a grand jury might be
safely dispensed with altogether. In one of his charges Mr.
Stuart Wortley, then recorder of London, said he quite con-
curred in the opinion that the services of grandjuries were
perfectly useless, that the expenses of criminal prosecutions
were thus considerably enhanced, that they afforded an
oPPortunity for defeating the ends of justice by tampering
with witnesses, while in other cases great injustice was com-
mitted by allowing vindictive persons to prefer unfounded
charges behind the backs of the accused. The late Lord
Denman' who was not likely to give up anything which he
thought necessary for the protection of the subject, also
said it was difficult to' conjecture what in the present day
was the use of grand juries; they could hardly clear a sus-
pected character, but might do irreparable injury to public
justice. But there were other evils attending these grand
juries within the limits of the metropolitan police district.
At every session of the Central Criminal Court there were
assembled a great number of witnesses, prosecutors, the
friends of the accused and other
parties, and it was calcu-
lated that on an average 1,000 persons of both sexes and of
all ages were collected there at each sitting. Now, for those
persons there was no accommodation whatever ;
they were
uncertain when their cases were to be taken andwere ob-
liged, therefore, to wait about from day to day ; and amost
demoralising effect was produced by the congregation of so
many persons of perhaps indifferent character, while to re-
spectable persons the inconvenience of attendwittongdwsaso veryconseble. The expense to the country
enor-
mous,and although this of itself would not be a reason for
puttig an end to the system, the point was worthy of at-
tention. He proposed, then, by the second clause of the
bill, that where a person had been committed, or was
bound over in recognisances to take his trial, within
the metropolitan police district, there should be no
necessity for an indictment, but that an information should
be prepared by the proper officer 'of the Court, and that that
information should- have all the effect of an indictment
found found by the grand jury, and should be attended with all
its consequences. The result of this arrangement would
be that solicitors would know exactly the position of thei
different cases in the list, and that all the parties concerned
would know on what day to attend. Various attempts had
been made to effect a chiinge in the present system. In 18467
being then Attorney-General, he presented a report to the
Home-office on the subject of criminal law generally, in
which he recommended the abolition of grand juries within
the metropolitan police district. In 1849 a bill was intro-
duced by the Government of the day to effect the same object.
This bill was referred to a select committee, before which six
persons of great practical experience were examined—Mr.
Clark, the late Clerk of Arraigns, Mr. 'Humphreys, a solici-
tor in large practice, the present Lord Mayer, the then
Common Sergeant, the Chairman of the Surrey Sessions?
and Mr. Bennoch, a merchant of the city of London—and
these gentlemen all gave the strongest possible evidence in
favour of abolishing grand juries. ' The bill, however, was
dropped. In 1857 he had introduced a similar bill, but owing
to the press of public business he had been unable to proceed
with it. Under these circumstances he hoped their lordships
would be of opinion that this bill had been maturely consi-
dered, and that it was a desirable improvement in the law.
In deference to the objections of son
pro-
vided that whenever a magistrate ifiersons he had
dismissed a charge
the party who preferred it,
notice to dissatisfied,t might go
before a grand jury, givingirnhotie
two days of his intention, and of the court trlO:Aistrachtehetthinant
to appeal. For this purpose it was
se that the grand
mjries should assemble three times in the year at the Cri-
inal Court and four times in the year at the Quarter Ses-
sions. These provisions would do away With
all secret
charges, would abolish the anomaly of a second inquiryafter
a fan esammation before a magistrate, and at the
time would give an appeal to any persons who mighsrbee
Lisatisfied with the deaden of the magistrate. Re hoped,