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

ABOLITION OF GRAND JURIEs.
In announcing. a few weeks since, the passage, By
the Legislature Of Michigan, Of law to dispense
with the use of Grand Juries, part Of the ordi-
nary machinery for the administration of criminal
Justice, We took occasion To point ont some OF the
elections to which that part Of our Judicial system
is obnoxious The same subject has recently been
under discussion in the British House Of Lords,
upon the occasion Of the introduction into that
BODY of two bills-one by Lord Campbell, Chief
justice .f the Queens Bench, for the proven
ton Of malicious prosecutions, requiring that,
in cases Of conspiracy, perjury, and obtain
ing goods or money under false pretenses,
no bills should b. found by Grand Juries,
unless the charges had first been investi-
gated before magistrate who had found grounds
for committing the party charged for trlal-the
other by the Lord Chancellor, proposing to dis
pense altogether with Grand Jurcs within London
and the metropolitan districts, and requiring that,
in all cases Of persons bound over for trial by the
police magistrates, an information should be pre-
pared by the prosecuting officer oi the Central
Criminal Court, which should have the same effect
with an Indictment; thus adopting, as to the Me
tropolitan districts, precisely the same principle
embodied in the Michigan Act to which We have
referred.
Irpon the occasion of the introduction of his bill,
Lord Campbell said that the law had been greatly
abused in relation to prosecutions by Indictment
1t often happened that, without any pre'ious NO
tice whatever, person had bill of indictment
preferred against him. the biz having been pro-
cured on CT yarte evidence and on which he was
brought to trial without opportunity of having
been previously heard. When the trial came on,
he might b. able to show that there was no l0unda-
ton for the charge against; him but this was not
done without a great amount OF yexation, trouble
and expense. In these cases, the object oi the
prosecutors was To- eXtort money or TO Cypress the
party accused. And what remedy b 1 to person
who was thus wrongly charged! lie might
bring an action against the accuser Tor malicious
prosecution; but what satisfaction was that Tor
false charge brought against man of character
Indictments for perjury, conspiracy, ana obtaining
goods or money upon false pretenscs, were COM
mony found in this way. and often where the evil
dence was quite inadcquate and it was to guard
ov,nst tbi, abuse that he had introduced his bill.
The Lord Chancellor highly approved Lord
Campbers bill but regretted that IT did not go iar
enough lie could add his own experience to that
of Lord Campbell AS TO the scandalous abuses
arising from persons resorting 10 grand luries and
peryerting the process of indictment for purposes
of malice ar oppression. He mentioned two cases,
one an indictment for keeping a gambling-house'
the other against highly respectable boarding
house keeper for keeping house OF ii-iame ueither
of which came within the provisions OF the pro-
posed bill. For his part, he thought IL was oe-
sirablc, in every ease where there was Il criminal
accusation, that it should be- publicly heard.
But. suppo,ing the House should agree Ia go that
length. then arose the question of the proprely
of continuing the Grand jury at all How did the
Grand Jury system work at present party
WAS accused before u magistrate who conducted
his inquiry in public. and, having sscertained that
there was sufficient evidence 10 warrant further
inquiry. he sent the accused for trial. IL might
naturally be- expected that the trial would take
place without any further preliminary examination,
but instead Of that the case was taken before an
irresponsible body sitting in Il secret chamber.
probably unaccustomed to Judicial proceedings,
and they there determined whether there should
be any further proceeding
Lord Cranworth agreed that sending cases that
had been inquired into by experienced magistrates
at Row.sreet aud other London Police Courts, TO
be- heard again by Grand Juries, was puero TO the
last degree: but he thought that the abolition OF
Grand .Juries ought, in the first instance, To he
confined To the Central Criminal Court for the
Metropolitan districts Lord Brougham also ey-
pressed his regret that Lord Campbrls bill did not
90 further The Lord Chancellor, thus encouraged,
introduced few dsys after, his bill for dispensing,
in the Metropolitan districts, with the Use of Grand
Juries On this OCCASION he remarked that IL was
contrary To the spirit Of English laws that charge.
should BE- made in secret without the party accused
having the means of knowing before his trial
who were his sccuserS, who We're the Wit
nesses and what was the distinct charge
against him. But if public investigation were
required in all cases a necessary preliminary for
Il trial then the next step seemed inevitable; for
it would be- monsirous 70 require that sl crlminsi
charges should b. inyest gated betores magistrate,
and that. after he had decided that there were
ground. for trial the ease should be- sgsin filtered
-.