framed, lies the middle and sensible course of studying, with the best help that modern research has afforded, the only part of the Roman system that is of universal application-the theory of jurisprudence in the abstract upon which it was founded, and the broad lines of classification which it involved. For this purpose nothing that has yet appeared in the English language seems to be more convenient than Mr. Lindley's work. He justly observes, that Charles Sprengel Greaves, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, Q. C., thus pointed out the Defects which he thought ought to be remedied: In the first place, every magistrate who acts for a county knows that it frequently happens that a serious felony is committed, and nobody is personally interested; there is consequently nobody to institute a prosecution. If there were anybody to institute a prosecution, he might not be able to make a charge "Whoever reflects for a moment upon the present against any particular person, because he might have "condition of English law, and upon the enormous quan- no evidence to substantiate that charge. The first tity of the materials from which alone a useful know-defect, therefore, is, that you have no means of ori⚫ledge of its actual state is obtainable, cannot fail to see ginating inquiries, except there be some person susthat no person who has to master them will have time pected, whom you may charge before the magisat his command seriously to study the details of the trates. That, to my mind, is a great and pre-eminent 'Roman or any other system of jurisprudence. Such defect. I have no doubt that in this country many a study is itself sufficient to ingross the whole time murderers escape through it; because, although coroand attention of any person, even if he be endowed ners are sometimes very active, they also are sometimes with more than ordinary capacity. On the other not quite so active; and in cases where there is no hand, it is highly desirable, and perfectly feasible for coroner, there is no person whatever to institute an him who makes it the serious business of his life to inquiry; for if you refer to Jervis's Act, (11 & 12 Vict. study and practise any particular system of law, to c. 42), you will find that it is only in a case where possess, as part of his general education, a knowledge some person or other will make an oath that he susof the leading principles of other systems, and espe- pects some person, or that some person has committed 'cially of the Roman, the basis of them all. To an a felony, that the magistrates are justified in interfering English barrister knowledge of this kind is no doubt at all. I own I do not think that is the law; but still rather indirectly than directly useful, although its that is the law by that act of Parliament. As a magisdirect use is probably greater than is ordinarily sup-trate myself, I have interfered and made investigations, posed. Indirectly, the greatest advantage to be de- though there has been no charge before me, and would rived from a study of the Roman law, and of the do so again; because it is quite obvious, that where works of continental jurists, appears to the writer to people are exceedingly poor, or where, as you suggested be the acquisition of a habit of classification, and con- just now, a child is injured, or in many cases that can sequently of duly appreciating points of resemblance be put, there is nobody whatever to bring forward a and of difference. The great skill with which many charge; and I think that alone a very strong ground of the writers on Roman law have combined and sys- for having some public officer appointed who should tematised the immethodically-arranged contents of the follow up what the coroner ought to follow up, and Corpus Juris Civilis contrasts in a striking manner make investigations where very serious offences occur. with the defective arrangement observable in the works 'first placed in the hands of an English student." Whether some better classification cannot be found than has yet been devised by any writer on any system of laws is a question which will soon be asked in this country with a view to some practical result. In addition to the service of faithfully translating into good English the general part of one of the best works on the Roman law, Mr. Lindley has furnished an appendix of explanatory notes, and illustrations, or parallels, or contrasts (as the case may be) from the English law. PUBLIC PROSECUTORS. (Continued from Vol. 1, N. S., p. 526). Thomas Flower Ellis, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, described the System adopted at Leeds as follows:It was learned that at Liverpool the system was for the magistrates to bind over Mr. Dowling, the chief of the police; and that plan was adopted at Leeds, not upon any consultation with me. They always bind over either Mr. Reed or Mr. James, who are the two superintendents of police there, not quite filling the same position as Mr. Dowling, but being, more technically, head constables. They are formally bound over, and then the prosecution is put in the hands of one of two named attornies; because, at the time when the system was introduced, one party, which is called the liberal party, was very predominant at Leeds, and they were apprehensive that it might look like a party move, and therefore they proposed to the other party to name an attorney; and thus two exceedingly respectable attornies were named, between whom the business is distributed; and the improvement has been very great certainly. Mr. Phillimore.-You say there is nobody to follow up the charge; might it not also happen that a person extort money from the party accused, and then let it might pretend to follow up the charge with a view to drop?-No doubt. Do you believe that that often happens?-I have no doubt, in many instances, where charges are made before the magistrates, they are afterwards improperly dropped, or compromised to a certain extent before they come to trial. I was going to advert to that. Then suppose there is a person to make a charge; if there is an appearance before justices or before a coroner, in important cases, everybody knows that it wants some superintending mind to manage the case before the coroner or the magistrates, in order that the facts may be got out; and I may mention this, (I dare say it is familiar to magistrates who have investigated it like myself), that though it may appear that the magistrates have the proper witness before them, it is by no witnesses, those facts being really of importance, and means an easy thing to get the facts from ignorant some witnesses not considering them of any importance at all. Therefore you want somebody, at all events in serious cases, before the magistrates, to help them in eliciting the truth and taking the examinations properly. Then suppose a case is determined by the magistrate to be sent to the assizes or the sessions; as a general thing, the magistrate takes no duty whatever upon himself as to the prosecution he simply commits. It is no part of his duty to say, "You are to employ an attorney" or any particular attorney. My own opinion is, that first of all attornies ought to be employed in all cases; and I am clearly of opinion that the proper course is this-that at the time when the magistrate makes up his mind to bail or to commit, he ought to say to the prosecutor, if the prosecutor be a person in such a situation of life as reasonably to be supposed to carry on the prosecution properly, "Do you intend to em 19 ploy your own attorney?" If the prosecutor says, "I do intend to employ my own attorney," then that attorney's name ought to be marked down on the depositions, and he ought to have the conduct of the case; and no other attorney ought ever to be allowed to have anything to do with the case, or to receive any costs if he does attend to the case, unless there is cause shewn to the satisfaction of the Court. It is astonishing with how much mischief you have to put up in Staffordshire. It is very well known there, that though the costs are at a very low rate, there is a perfect hunt for the prosecutions by low attornies, and by those persons who practise in the name of attornies, but who are not attornies: the consequence is, that they get hold of the prosecutors who are poor, and incompetent to carry on the prosecution; they tell them that they will conduct the prosecution; it gets into their hands, and they never take the least trouble about it, any more than giving counsel a copy of the depositions with the fee on the back of the brief, and they let the case take its chance at the assizes. That is a constant practice, and it is an evil which should be stopped; and what I suggest, I think, would have a tendency to stop it. I do not say it is impossible to have some means of getting at the prosecutor beforehand; but still, if the magistrate caused the man to fix upon some attorney, and his name was put upon the depositions, it would prevent any intermediate intervention by improper persons between the time of the committal and of the assizes or sessions. Then there are cases, which are taken sometimes before the magistrates, where there is no person who can be properly called the prosecutor; and it is a very common thing, and to my mind a very objectionable thing, that police officers or constables are bound over to conduct prosecutions. Constables are ministerial officers, and in my opinion their duty is simply to take up a person, to hear what he has to say, and to keep him safely as long as he continues in their charge, and not to interfere in any other way whatever in the prosecution. I have seen mischief enough from that interference in many cases. Then in those cases where there is no person who can be properly called the prosecutor at all, or where, from poverty or otherwise, he is likely not to conduct the prosecution properly, I undoubtedly would give the magistrates the option of either appointing an attorney themselves, or directing the district officer, whom I shall name by and by, to appoint an attorney to conduct the prosecution, and to name that attorney at that time; so that you would have then, as soon as a case had got before the magistrates, and they had determined to commit, the case taken up by an attorney regularly in every instance, and carried on to the assizes or sessions, as I think I shall be able to shew, in a proper manner, so as to secure the ends of justice, if there be evidence for it. At the present time, between the period when a person is before the magistrates and the period when he comes to the assizes, I find great defects. Everybody who has been in anything like the business I have been in will know that a great defect exists in not getting up additional evidence, and not properly preparing the case for the assizes or the sessions, whichever it may happen to be. In very many instances the whole evidence which counsel have at the assizes or sessions is a mere copy of the depositions taken before the magistrates; and it is obvious, especially in the most important cases, that there wants a very great deal more to be done; it is necessary that additional evidence should be got in very many important cases, and if attornies were appointed it would be their duty to do that. Then, when you get to the assizes or sessions, your case goes before the grand jury. Now, I confess I am not for abolishing the grand jury; I am very strongly in favour of the grand jury; and, if necessary, I think I could give strong reasons for it: but the grand jury are placed in a position of very great hardship, and I think they are very unjustly accused for throwing out bills. Just see the situation they are placed in. A number of gentlemen are called together, and they are placed in a room, and they have a document brought before them; it may consist of half the size of this piece of paper, or it may consist, as I have seen it, of forty-five yards, as I saw in Barber and Fletcher's case. They have nobody to explain to them the charge in the first instance--that is the first thing; it operates especially at the sessions, because at the sessions the grand jury are generally persons of an inferior order, and very little capable of understanding such documents as indictments. Then, supposing they do understand the charge, every one knows that there constantly are cases which are really difficult to bring forward, and really difficult to lay before the petty jury, so as to be thoroughly understood; and yet a grand jury, supposed to be entirely ignorant of the case, are, without any assistance whatever, to be understood to find out the whole of that case in the very hurried manner in which they act, and to come to a satisfactory conclusion upon it: therefore they are placed in one of the most awkward positions which can be conceived, as to coming to right conclusions, even supposing the witnesses tell the truth, or supposing they are examined as accurately as they can be. But it opens this door to great frauds, which are no doubt committed: witnesses in many instances are tampered with by persons on behalf of the defendant; and if they do not, at all events, commit perjury, which sometimes is the case, they will do this-they will say, "I will tell nothing more than I am bound to tell;" and they go before the grand jury, and unless questions are particularly directed to them to get out what they know, in such cases they keep back most important evidence; and in that way I have no doubt many bills are ignored. I have made in the course of my time a good many inquiries as to the cause of the grand jury ignoring bills, and I have no hesitation in saying that the principal cause is, that the witnesses are not thoroughly examined. The grand jury do not know what questions to put, and the witnesses do not give the whole of their evidence; and that, I am quite sure, is the principal cause of bills being ignored. It seems to me that there is a means of remedying these defects which I have pointed out, and I think the remedy is the appointing an intelligent district officer. I will point out all the duties which I think he might attend to as well as he could. In the first place, I begin by mentioning the difficulties in making investigations at present, where there are no known persons to prosecute a serious offence, or where there are only poor persons to take it up; that should be his first duty. If, for instance, he heard of a serious offence taking place, and he did not see any investigation before the coroner, he ought himself to cause inquiries as to that serious offence, to elicit who had committed it, although no person was suspected; and I can illustrate how it would work. Suppose a rick to be set on fire; it is very possible that it may be that nobody suspects anybody, and yet that there may be a chain of circumstantial evidence leading to the guilty person. The public officer should go to the place, and ascertain who were about the place, and make inquiries of them. It is very easy to see, that, by making those inquiries, although the evidence of any one person might lead to nothing, the information which he might get from all would make such a chain of circumstances as would leave no reasonable doubt that a particular person had committed that offence; then he would have a charge made before the magistrates, and the case investigated before the magistrates. That I would put as an illustration of the way in which a man might work in such a situation as that. His next duty should be, where a charge of murder was made, or of any very serious capital offence, personally, if he could, to attend either before the coroner or the magistrates, and to see that the case was properly conducted there. I should say next, if he had time, in other serious cases, or where from the nature of the case there was difficulty in it, he should generally give his attention to the magistrates' court, to assist them in any difficulty; and in cases where he did not attend personally, he should have liberty to see the depositions, which should be returned to some central place-say the office of the clerk of the peace-for all minor offences. He should look through those depositions, and see whether or not the evidence was sufficient, or whether there was too much evidence, and give directions to the attornies, appointed as I have mentioned, as to what witnesses they should be prepared with, and any additional evidence which might seem to him requisite; or if there were any superfluous witnesses, not to bring them; and I must say, that I think that an officer who did even that would save a great deal of expense, and that cases would be brought very much more satisfactorily into court than at present; for judges are constantly complaining, on the one hand, that there is a witness wanting, and therefore the case breaks down; and on the other hand, you hear them complaining of two or three witnesses being summoned to prove a fact, when any one of them would have done it. That is the case particularly as to the production of property; you constantly have three or four policemen called to trace it through three or four different stages, when any one of them might do so. Then, supposing the case has been sent to the sessions or to the assizes, the district officer should have power to see that that case is properly managed by the attornies-to say, "What are you doing in this case? Have those investigations which I directed been made?" and to see that no compromise takes place, and that nothing is done to defeat the ends of justice. The Attorney-General. You would not take the prosecution out of the hands of the attorney, and put it into the hands of the agent?-No.. Would it not be better to have a public prosecutor, and for him to conduct the prosecution?—I do not think you can do that. Then I think the district officer ought to keep his eye on the prosecution till it came before the grand jury; and when the case came before the grand jury, I think it ought to be his duty to attend before the grand jury; it should be his duty in the first place to explain to them the charge, and in the next place to see the witnesses called and sworn before the grand jury, as they ought to be. Mr. Phillimore. You are aware that in Charles the Second's time, in the case of Lord Shaftesbury, the Queen's counsel attended before the grand jury?—Yes; upon the trial of the murderers of Charles the First the resolution of the judges was, that the King's counsel had a right to attend before the grand jury; you will find that in the first few pages of Kelynge. Then I should say, that on attending before the grand jury, the district officer should take no part, of course, in their proceedings, but he should take care that the evidence was properly got out. It appears to me, as I think I have stated, from that passage in Kelynge, that the Queen's counsel and the prosecutor might attend; and in the Queen's Bench there formerly was an officer, the clerk of the grand juries I believe he was called, whose duty it was to attend, and perform the duties which I have been describing, in the grand jury room. That officer was abolished, I think, by the 6 Vict., the Crown Office Act; but though that officer is abolished in name, his duties are still performed by the first clerk of the Crown Office, as I have learned within the last few days from Mr. Robinson. . . . At the 19 Central Criminal Court there certainly was an officer, whom I have seen present here, namely, Mr. Straight, who used to attend, because I was examined as a prosecutor there; and I believe his duty was to hold the depositions in his hand, and to look at the depositions, and see whether the witnesses told all that they had stated in the depositions, and to examine them if they did not. I rather think that in Durham the same is the case, but I do not know. Those, therefore, are precedents for having some person, at all events, attending before the grand jury. I think it is, at the Central Criminal Court, by the Central Criminal Court Act; but I do not know how it is at Durham. I suppose in the Court of Queen's Bench it is by ancient usage, for I do not know the origin of it. I think, if those things were done by the public officer, it would tend to prevent the failure of very many prosecutions. I think also such an officer ought to inquire, if a defence was set up before the magistrates, as to that defence; because every one knows that at present, as a general thing, we have no means, as counsel for the prosecution, of knowing anything about the defence. If he found that a defence was likely to be set up, he ought to institute inquiries; because I am inclined to think there are many cases in which fictitious defences succeed when they otherwise would not. Lord Stanley.-You mean if a defence was set up before the committing magistrate?—Yes; or if it was offered to be set up. I can mention a very remarkable case which occurred at Gloucester; and I am going to suggest to the Chancellor that magistrates should always be bound to take the examinations of witnesses tendered for the defence, in consequence of that and other cases which have occurred within my knowledge. A man was charged with a burglary at Cheltenham; the watches were found upon him at Brighton; he went before the magistrates, and was committed, and they refused to examine his witnesses. When his witnesses were called at the trial, they proved an alibi in fact. I had not the slightest instructions about them, and could only cross-examine them upon suggestions that came into my own mind. The result was an acquittal; they proved an alibi in London, at a particular house named, and the case was, that they were all keeping the birthday or the wedding-day (I forget which) of the owner of that house. The very moment that an inquiry was made afterwards, it turned out that there was no such house or person. If the magistrates had examined that evidence on the first occasion when the man was before them, the whole of that would have been found out, and the man would have been convicted. The Attorney-General.—Was that evidence tendered before the magistrates?—Yes, and they refused it. Mr. Phillimore. Then would not the result be, that the man would hold his tongue, and not bring his witnesses?-Perhaps so; but when a man does tender his witnesses, you may possibly calculate that he will tender them again. The Attorney-General.-Supposing the result of the inquiry before the magistrates should be, that a very good primâ facie case is made out against the party accused, but that he makes out to the satisfaction of the magistrate, and the magistrate believes that it can be made out upon the trial to the satisfaction of the jury, that he was not there at the time, what is the magistrate to do?—I should dismiss it. I will illustrate it by a case. It sometimes happens now that the wrong man is taken up; the magistrates, by not investigating the case, sometimes commit that wrong man for trial; and not only is he wrongfully detained in prison, but the right man escapes. I could mention a very remarkable case of that kind. A person of the name of Yarworth was murdered near Cheltenham, and a man of the name of Bowen was taken up before the 19 magistrates; he offered, before the magistrates, to prove that he was not the man, and that he was at Worcester at the time; they refused to hear that evidence, and when the trial came on, the alibi was so clear that Mr. Justice Coleridge stopped the case. Now, his witnesses not only proved that he was not the man, but gave strong evidence of who was the man; and that man, in the interim, while the other was in gaol, escaped from the country altogether, and got rid of the charge. Therefore you may not only have a man improperly shut up in prison till the assizes, but also, by not taking the evidence for the defence, you may let the guilty man off. Mr. Phillimore.-Will you be good enough to proceed with the statement of your plan?-I have made the observations which have occurred to me as to the duties of the district agent; in addition to which I may say that many cases must have come to your know ledge of this kind, namely, where children, apprentices, and servants have been maltreated. It is nobody's duty to take such a case up at all; anybody is regarded as an officious, meddling, busy person if he gives information to the police, or does anything of the sort. I think those cases might well fall within the duty of the district officer; he should keep his eyes and ears open, and if he hears of anything going on likely to produce manslaughter or murder, he should take up the case. Again: I think an officer of that kind would be very useful in preventing public nuisances. Nobody takes up, as a general thing, the prosecution of a public nuisance. He ought to have power to give notice to the party to stop it, and to say that otherwise a prosecution will be instituted; and in case of its being continued, to institute a prosecution. .... Would you have the district officer on such a footing that any person against whom an injury had been committed should go at once and say to him, "I have sustained an injury; will you look into it?" without the intervention of the district attorney?-Yes. . . My view of the district agent is, that he should be superior to attornies. It would not do for one attorney to tell another what he should do. . . . I think we want a superintending mind to see that the cases are properly managed by the attornies, the prosecutors, and so on. .... I-find in practice that the attornies now dread bringing witnesses who are really necessary, for fear of being blamed. I have known cases break down at sessions and assizes in consequence of that. I can give two remarkable instances of murder. One occurred at Gloucester five or six years ago, of a murder by poison. It was of the greatest importance to shew that that poison had been bought at a particular shop: in consultation, the attorney told me that he had such a witness to prove it. I inquired into his character, and so on, and I had doubts as to his being a proper witness to support that fact. I asked, "Was there anybody else in the shop?" The answer was, "There was a little girl;" and I directed her to be sent for. The witness in question broke down completely in about three minutes, upon cross-examination; if it had rested with him, the case would have been gone. The little girl completely set up the case. She was a perfectly credible witness, and the consequence was, there was a conviction. There was a case occurred, I think, two years afterwards, which was just the reverse. Only one witness was called for a similar purpose; he broke down upon cross-examination, and the prisoner was acquitted of a gross murder. In both those cases I had pretty good reason to know that only one witness was provided, for fear of a lecture at the assizes for having called two witnesses. In cases of murder, does it not very often happen that there is nobody having a direct personal interest in the investigation of the murder?- Very often. As a general thing, in the lower ranks of life, nobody takes up the prosecution in a case of murder. A very singular case is mentioned in the evidence of Mr. Shepherd before the Criminal-law Commissioners; that was a case of murder. He was directed by the magistrates to investigate the case, and I think he says that he was 40%. out of pocket, after being complimented for the way in which he had got up the case.. Is it within your knowledge that profligate men often take up prosecutions for the sole purpose of being bribed to withdraw them?-I have no positive knowledge of it; I have no doubt it is the fact. . . . I have no doubt that in Staffordshire prosecutions are got hold of in order to get money anyhow. . . . . I would have a counsel in London, to whom the district officers should be entitled, in all cases of difficulty, to refer the cases for advice; so that if a case occurred in which there was a difficulty as to the evidence or the indictment, the evidence should be sent up to that person, and that person should direct what was to be done. [Mr. Greaves then proposed that there should be about sixty or seventy officers to be appointed by the Government, at a salary of 5001. each, the expense to be borne by the respective counties.] Mr. Watson.-Is it your opinion, that by having such an officer as you suggest in prosecutions at assizes and sessions, the expenses would be reduced?—I am quite clear that the expenses would be reduced, and the certainty of conviction would be very much increased; and the very strong reason I have for recommending this system is, that I am quite satisfied that the increase of crime has very much arisen from the uncertainty of convictions. I am quite clear in my own mind that every acquittal has a tendency to create more crime; and therefore, exactly in proportion as you diminish acquittals, you make person and property more secure. Lord Mr. Phillimore.-Is it your opinion that witnesses ought to be called at the public expense, to facts for prisoners?—I will explain what my opinion is. Brougham has a general resolution, as you have seen 1 have no doubt, that in all cases where there is an acquittal, or the grand jury does not find a bill, or the prosecution fails, the prisoner shall be allowed his costs. I am quite clear that that would not do at all; I am quite clear that it would be a great inducement, in the first place, to set up fictitious defences, and it would in a multitude of instances be paying the really guilty their costs. But I am quite clear that cases do occur where innocent persons are sent to the assizes or sessions, and I think that justice requires, as they are sent for the benefit of the community, in order that public justice may be done, that if the public send them there, and have them tried wrongfully, the public should pay the expenses of their defence. It is a shocking thing to hear a prisoner say, "I could have proved so and so, but my witnesses are poor and could not come?"-Yes, I think the only course to be adopted is this, which I am prepared to suggest: that the Court should have a discretionary power, if it bonâ fide had reason to believe affirmatively that the man was innocent, to grant the costs of the defence, but not otherwise. . ... If the district officer found that that defence was really one that should come into court, and was also satisfied that the prisoner was too poor to bring his witnesses, he should have the power of ordering those witnesses to attend, or serving them with subpoenas to attend, in order to give evidence. I also suggested, that in all cases where the district agent did that, it should be a ground for the Court, in its discretion, if it thought fit, allowing the costs of those witnesses so summoned, even though on the trial the Court might not be satisfied of the innocence of the prisoner; because, inasmuch as those witnesses would be forced by the public officer to attend, after examination as to whether they should attend or not, I think a public officer to investigate their affairs; or suppose, for instance, a forged deed is put in on the trial of an action, the attorney who knows the facts should conduct the prosecution. Robert Marshall Straight, Esq., gave the following evidence: Mr. Phillimore.-What are your functions?-I am deputy clerk of assize on the Home Circuit; I am one of the clerks of arraigns of the Central Criminal Court, and I also practise as a Crown draftsman under the Bar. How long have you been employed in those capacities?-I have been at the Old Bailey ever since the year 1832, and on the circuit since 1838. I have been engaged in all the departments of the office; I have been clerk of indictments and clerk of arraigns; I have sat with the grand jury, and I have taxed costs. How long has that period extended ?-Twenty-three years. they should not be summoned to attend, and pay their own expenses. I can give two very remarkable instances, in both of which acquittals took place, and in both of which probably convictions and executions would have taken place if the witnesses had not been called. Two men were tried for a capital offence at Gloucester. One of the men was able to make a speech, and fully impressed my mind that he was an innocent man; he stated where he had been, and where the other prisoner had been. I suggested to the learned judge that he should ask the constable whether, as far as he knew, the prisoner's statement was correct, as to witnesses who had attended the county assize town till the day before, but who could not stay any longer. The constable confirmed the prisoner's statement; the witnesses were sent for by the learned judge, and a distinct alibi was proved. At Shrewsbury a man was tried for murder, and on his defence he stated that his son was kept in the workhouse on the part of the prosecution, and that he could give most important evidence to conThen your experience in criminal matters, and the tradict the principal witness against him. The witness-Yes; I have been present at a vast number of trials. working of our criminal system, is very considerable? was sent for, and he came and gave such evidence in contradiction of the other witness, that the jury acquitted the prisoner. Both those cases were before Mr. Justice Patteson. Those cases clearly shew the great necessity of prisoners having their witnesses present to be examined; because it is obvious that any investigation at the Home Office, after conviction, is not half so satisfactory as in a public court. In your opinion, do any evils arise in the present system from the want of some responsible person to think there are evils, but I do not think they are so undertake the duties of criminal prosecutions? - I great as is generally supposed. Will you state what those evils are, and why you do not think that they are so great?-Will you allow me Mr. Greaves strongly objected to the appointment of to define the stages into which I would divide a prosebarristers in the several districts for the purpose of concution. The first stage I would designate as that from arrest until examination before the magistrate; the seducting the prosecutions. He gave the following reasons for his objection :-In the first place, I do not think mination before the magistrate and ending at comcond I would describe as commencing with the exathey are wanted; my experience teaches me that prosecutions are as well conducted as they would be if there mitment; the third, commencing at commitment and was a public officer appointed to conduct them. On ending at presentment; the fourth, presentment; the our circuit the rising juniors, the ablest young men on fifth, trial; and there are two other stages which do not the circuit, have, generally speaking, conducted the very often occur, viz. those upon removal by certiorari, prosecutions, especially the most important ones; and and on proceedings in error. I think it must be admit I think I may say, that if one was appointed as the ted, that in that stage which I have described as comCrown counsel on the circuit, it would not be a gentle-mencing at commitment and ending at presentment, man who expected to rise to the head of his profession; because, if he is to undertake prosecuting all the pri soners on the circuit, he cannot attend to civil business; therefore whoever takes it must make up his mind to give up civil business in toto. Mr. Miles.-Supposing it were adopted, would it not be really shutting the door to all junior counsel ?-It would..... I think it would have a very great tendency to stop the study of the criminal law, which I should like to see studied very much more than at present, because I think there is now a stimulus for men to go into the Crown court and learn criminal law, in order to get into business in the Crown court, and from the Crown court to the civil court. Mr. Greaves desired to preserve the right of the private prosecutor to prosecute if he thought proper. He said-You have an old practice in operation here which has become part of your system, and every person thinks it a right which he has to prosecute; and I think that right should be continued, unless there are strong reasons to shew that by the continuance of that right you prevent a better system being adopted. All our provisions have gone upon that view. First of all, we have the restoration of property upon conviction; in the next place, by the common law no man can bring an action for any felonious act done to him till he has prosecuted the person, Therefore you must meet those cases if you establish the Crown's right to interfere, and take the prosecution out of the prosecutor's own hands. Besides which, I am quite sure, that, in a great number of important cases, if you put a public officer to prosecute, the private parties would throw cold water upon the case. Take a case of embezzlement of bankers' property; they would not allow who ought to be a responsible person to have charge of some person, you may call him what you please, but the prosecution, is required. You think that evils arise from the want of such a person? I think so, in a few instances. I From the time of committal to the time of presentment?-Yes; I think some person should have charge of the prosecution; and I think evils arise from people taking charge of prosecutions who ought not to have it. With reference to that, I would mention a case within my own knowledge. A man was indicted at the Central Criminal Court; it was for murder; the counsel opened believe he was perfectly right; I do not think that a a case of acquittal; he said that he would not go on. conviction could have been expected; but afterwards, upon inquiries as to who was the real person instructing the counsel and employing the solicitor, it turned out that it was the wife of the accused; he was charged with the murder of his child; that, of course, could not be right. . . . . I do not think police constables are the persons who ought to have charge of them. . . . quite concur in the recommendations which I have for the prosecution; but that may be either a very exheard, that some district officer should be responsible pensive affair, or it may be made an economical one. I can imagine that if the clerks to the magistrates were paid by salary in lieu of fees, and were permitted to prosecute these cases, they would be most efficiently prosecuted. On the other hand, I am aware that there intrusted with these prosecutions: if they are to be, the is a feeling that the magistrates' clerks ought not to be system might be economical; if they are not, I should imagine it would be extremely expensive. (To be continued). * |