New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1859-04-29

not having the accused before them. examining The

not having the accused before them, examining the
witnesses separately and on side only and sworn
to secrecy Us to all that passed in their conclsve
7, ves not 10 be wondered at thst under such An
rnnpemeut many bill, should be- ignorrd to the as
tonishmeut Of the committing magistrates and OF
the parties themselves, because il atiored ample
opportunities for tsmpering 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 proceedings before the Grand jury
were secret A gentleman who had been
for many years Clerk OF the Arraigns at
the Old Bailey had been accustomed TO speak OF
the Grand JURY rs ''the hope OF the London thief
Grand Juries in the Metropolitan Police Districts
lad themselves become satisfied Of their useless
ness, and had repeatedly presented themselves
As unnecessary, and nuisance. Their own time,
they said, ~ well as that Of great body OF wit
nesses. and other persons, was most unprohtably
EMPLOYED In one Of his charges, Nlr Stuart
Wortlev. then Recorder of London, had fully
argued that the services Of Grand Juries were USE
esq. and that they greatly enhanced, to no Pur-
pose, the expenses of criminal justice, aflording
also, an opportunity for tnmpering with witnesses
while in other cases great Injustice was committed
in allowing yindctye persons to prefer uniounded
charges behind the backs Of the accused. The late
Lord Deuman had said that it difficult to con-
lecture what, in the present day. was the use OF
Grand Juries; they could hardly clear suspected
character, but might do rreparable injury to pub
lie justice
The bill was resd first and second time with
ont any objection; but when II came mp for third
reading Lord Lyndhurst made an elaborate OPPOSE
ton 10 IT, His objections We're exclusively con-
fined to the political of Grand Juries, the safe
guard they afforded against political oppression,
and the opportunity which they gave to country
gentlemen to take share in public affairs
The Lord Chancellor replied that these objections
did not touch his bill that he had carefully
guarded the liberty of the subject by providing
that for persons charged with political otIcnses
their should still be the Intervention Of Grand
Jury: and as TO the country gentlemen, This bill
lid not extend to the country. He did not yield
to any body in regard for ancient institutions but
he WAS not so blindIy enamorrd of them "a not 10
see their defects; nor was ne SO "educu w au-
tiquty as, when ancient things had declined from
their original use, TO hesitate to place reforming
hand upon them merely from prejudice for a veneer
ated name. As in the present state OF the session.
il was impossible for the bill to pass the Commons,
though he believed the majority Of that body was
favorable to IT, similar bills having been introduce
ed there and passed important stages, one IN lo49
another in 1859, and third in l-57-he would
withdraw it for the present, but with the hope OF
introducing il at an early stage of the next session
Our system Of giving 10 the prosecuting othcer
sort of supervision over the proceedings OF Grand
,Jures, no doubt tends to prevent or diminish some
of the abuses which appear to exist in England but
that system puts a vast power into the hands OF the
prosecuting officer, while it does not by any means
remove the most serious objection to this secret
trihupai