Star.
London, England, 1819-12-04 00:00:00

PAELIAMENTARY PROCEEDING&

.4

f

~1~

'r

"

~I
1 ~I
N~~ ;.

~

~;

•

~ f

X
t

. •

R

`:

.

HOUSE OF LOWS, DECEMBER 5.
IMPARLING AND TRAVERSING.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, on moving the
second, rea.iing of his Bill for prexentin* delay in
the administration of justice, in cases of misdemean-
our, entered into some explanation of the object of
tbs. Bill, nearly similar to what his Lordship stated.
on introducing it, shewing the bearing of the dif-
ferent clauses of it ; the general summary being to
take away the right of Imparling to Informanops
tiled, or Indictments found in the Court of King's
Bench, or removed there ; and the right of what was
called traversing at Sessions and other Courts, or in
other words, putting off the trial after pleading till
the ensuing Sessions,. and compelling the parties to
plead within a certain 'somber of days in the King's
Bench, after information filed, or indictment found,
and go to trial; and at Sessions, compelling them, if
under bail, to plead and be tried at the same Ses-
sions at which the indictment is found ; or if not
upon bail, to plead and try at the ensuing Sessions.
In every case the Court to have a discretionary
power to grant further time according to circum-
stances; and in all cases the defendant to have the
same facilities as the prosecutor to obtain a certiorari
before indictment found at any Sessions to remove it
into the Court of King's Bench. With regard to
what had been said as to the granting a copy of in-
formation or indictment at the public expense, he was
perfectly ready to accede to a proposition of that na-
ture, and he would state his view of the subject in
the Bill ; but it must be obvious that that House was
not the place to originate any question of expense.
His Lordship concluded by again declaring that no
recent circumstances had induced him to bring for-
ward this Bill, but that it was previously in his con-
templation, as a measure which the great delays in
the trials of misdemeanours, arising from the present
state of the law, imperiously required.
The Earl GROSVENOR, with reference to the
measures proposed by Ministers, of which this
formed a part, observed, that the inquiry (for which
he had voted) into the state of the country having
been refused, he was not now so much indisposed
towards these measures as he should have been had
that inquiry been granted. The refusal of the in-
quiry tended, in his opinion, to aggravate the dis-
content's which existed, and thus to render necessary
the strong measures which were now proposed. He
trusted, however, that their Lordships would not al-
low this Bill, which went to take away an import-
ant right flom the subject, to be lead a second time
without the fullest consideration, nor was he dis-
posed to accede to it without some better evidence
of its neces•ii y.
Lord ERSKINE said, if the object of the Bill had
been to give greater security to an individual ac-
cused, he should have been disposed to give it his
support, but he could not vote for a Bill which went
to take away from a defendant that security with
which the ancient law of the land had shielded him.
. In many cases, in charges, for instance, of sedition,
conspiracy, and others, it would be impossible, within
the time allowed by this Bill, for the defendants' le-
gal advisers to arrange the evidence necessary for
their defence, or in any way to secure the means of
their defence. True there was a provision, leaving it
to the discretion of the Court to grant further time,
but it was well known the Court would only accede
to delay on an affidavit made of the absence of a
material witness ; and if' this hill passed into a law,
them would not be time even for the parties to ascer-
tain what witnesses they ought to call for the pur-
poses of their defence. His Noble and Learned
kriend had said, that this Bill was brought forward
without reference to recent circumstances, and there
could be no doubt of his Noble and Learned Friend's
veracity ; but undoubtedly the Bill came in very sus-
picious company ; and when they were called upon
to pass so many measure; obnoxious to the Constitu-
tion, it behoved thern'to look with a very jealous eye
at one which, like the present, made so material an
innovation in the ancient law of the land. His Lord-
ship here went into some detail respecting the case
of an individual tried some years since for high nest-
' son, in attempting the life of the King, in which he
was assigned as Counsel for the prisoner, to shew the
superior excellence of the British laws with regard to
trials for high treason, they having for their object
that the prisoner should be brought to trial, freed as
far as possible from the operation of any prejudice
that might be raised against him. Applying this
argument to cases of misdemeanour affected by this
Bill, he observed, that the Bill in its effect might
tend to hurry on the trial of persons under cir-
cumstances in which prejudices might be operating
against, them in the most unfavourable manner.—,
But if it was persisted in to make this innovation in
the ancient law of the land, why not innovate equally
iu favour of the defendant, as well as infavour of the
prosecutor ? Instead of this, the Bill would forte the
defendant on to trial, frequently under the most un-
favourable circumstances; whilst the Attorney-Gene-
ral, who possessed the most grinding power of any.
Officer in the country, might file informations. and
keep them hanging over the heads of individualist
without its being possible for them to force him on
to trial. In other cases, where the Crown was not
the immediate prosecutor, the defendant might carry
down the record, and' thus force on a triid; but in
the cases of informations filed by the Attorney-Ge-
neral, the defendant could not carry down the record
without a warrant from that Officer. Why not then,
if there must be an innovation, take away the power
of the Attorney-General to keep a defendant-indefi-
nitely in suspense, as well as the power of the defen-
dant to postpone his trial ? Viewing, as he did, this
Bill 26 part of a system, and coupled with the other
measures which had been proposed, it was impossible
for him to give it his concurrence.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL said, he eras as little
disposed to innovation in the ancient law of the land
as the Noble and Learned Lord who had just
spoken ; nay, he went further, for he wonlchrot
morale even if the law or practice sought to be al+
tered was theoretically absurd, unless it was amply
proved that it was practically unjust. As to the Bill
before the House, he was not qualified to argue it
from the want of the requisite legal
knowledge • but as to the practical effect of the law
stood, he bad not the slightest doubt of' the ne-
ty of the present Bill. Was it possible, indeed,
my man to doubt upon the subject; who had at.

' - prove
bel
techn
li
+t+ 1.• know
as it
cessit
r . for ai