Mr. Henry Avory, Clerk of Indictments on the Home Mr. Phillimore.-Will you tell us what are the exact duties of the clerk of the indictments?-The duties which I perform I can tell you, and I conceive them to be the right ones. I have made it my practice to peruse every set of depositions returned to the assizes, and also to the Central Criminal Court, where I perform similar duties; from those depositions I draw the indictments, unless I receive notice that counsel is doing so. Upon the witnesses coming to the assizes, they come to me at the indictment office. If the depositions do not disclose sufficient facts upon which to found an indictment, I make further inquiries of them; and having satisfied myself, and drawn the indictment, my duty then is to pass it, and to send it to the grand jury. .... What are the evils which strike you as existing at present?-One of the evils is the absence of some responsible person to conduct the prosecution from the time of committal to trial; and my own impression is, that the magistrate's clerk is the person of all others to do that. copy of the depositions, and that copy of the depositions might just as well be handed down to the counsel by the Court, who would conduct it just as efficiently, inasmuch as he gets no other instructions from the attorney.... Do you think that in those cases it is desirable that there should be counsel ?-My own notion of the matter is, that every case should be conducted by counsel. Who is to make the copy?-There is no difficulty about that; it is a practice which we pursue at the Central Criminal Court every day. On passing the indictment at the indictment office, I inquire of the witnesses whether there is any attorney to conduct the prosecution; if they tell me no, and it is a case which, in the opinion of Mr. Clark, should be conducted by counsel, we immediately have the depositions copied; and the next morning, when the cases are in the list, the counsel mark their names against the cases in which they are concerned; and if there is any case in which no counsel is employed, a copy of the depositions is immediately handed to some gentleman to conduct the prosecution. That copy costs something?—Yes; of course we never send the depositions to strangers; we never part with the custody of them; and the practice has obtained of copying them after the usual office hours; so that the only expense to the public is some 2d. a folio. So that there is a considerable difference between the expense to the public of copying depositions in that way, and what it would be by having an attorney?Undoubtedly. I believe that is a practice confined to you?--I think it is, so far as the copying of the depositions is concerned; but the practice of handing the depositions to counsel, as you are aware, prevails on circuit; it is, however, open to the objection which you have mentioned, that the judge ought to keep the depositions.... Mr. Phillimore.-Do you think it right that a person who has to give evidence as a witness should be interested in the prosecution as an attorney who takes up the case?-I do not see any more interest in a policeman than in the prosecutor himself, or the attorney, who may be a witness. Does that, in your opinion, often lead to a failure in the administration of criminal justice?-I think not often, but that it does sometimes; very few instances have come within my own knowledge. In fact, I have endeavoured in vain since yesterday to bring to mind any one specific case; but I have an indistinct recollection of one or two cases in which a failure of justice has With the prosecutor you cannot help it?-If you so taken place from the want of some responsible person far restricted the policeman as to say that from the time to conduct the prosecution, and to get the further evi- of committal he should never see the witnesses till the dence which was necessary. time of the trial, he would be just as eager for con In your opinion, does the present system lead some-viction. . . . times to bringing prosecutions into the hands of a lower class of practitioners?-Yes, I think that is so. I can mention, that in the county of Kent especially I have known prosecutors come to the indictment office to me with their witnesses, perhaps on the evening of the commission day, when I have been drawing the indictments, without any attorney at all. The next morning, to my surprise, I have found that the prosecution has been in the hands of some attorney of whom I did not entertain perhaps a very high opinion, and I can only guess at the mode in which that has taken place. The Attorney-General.-What is your inference upon the subject?-My inference is, that there is a certain class of practitioners who make it their practice to attend at the assizes, and to go round ainongst the prosecutors and witnesses, soliciting to be allowed to conduct their prosecutions upon something like the following bargain: “I will undertake this prosecution for you, and you shall have counsel to conduct it; you shall be at no expense; I will be content to take whatever the county allows for counsel's fee and for the brief." Then I have no doubt that a great many prosecutors, perhaps being ambitious of having their case presented by counsel, fall in with that, and so it takes place. Practically what is the result of that?-I think the expense is utterly thrown away, so far as the brief goes, because in a majority of instances it is nothing but a Does it not tend rather to increase it, if, in addition to his duties as policeman, he examines the witnesses in the case?-As far as the matter has come within my own knowledge, I never heard of a case where a policeman has done more than this-perhaps in the indictment office it has been suggested to him that certain evidence is wanting; for instance, upor drawing the indictment, I have perhaps found an absence of proof of the ownership of the dwelling-house, or the ownership of the property, or the name of a corporation; ! have then said to the officer, "There is no evidence of this; you must procure it." The officer then gets that evidence; and I do not know any other agent who could be more properly employed. But as to a policeman sitting down to examine the witnesses, or to compare the testimony of one with that of the other, to supply any deficiency, that never came within my knowledge, and I never heard of its being done.... The Solicitor-General for Ireland.-Did you not say that you found police officers act rather as partisans in the case?—I think every policeman must; his promotion is concerned in it, so far as my knowledge goes. I have no very accurate knowledge upon the subject, but the promotion of a policeman I have always understood depends in a great measure upon the number of cases in which he is engaged, and the number of cases in which he is engaged successfully.. The Attorney-General.-Is that so?-I have always heard so, and that is the impression formed upon my mind. The Solicitor-General for Ireland.-It is looked upon as a test of his efficiency?-Yes. And he is promoted for his efficiency?—Yes. On the other hand, if the prosecutions in which he is engaged terminate in the acquittal of the accused, that is rather regarded as a test of inefficiency?—I imagine so; of course I may be utterly wrong in my impression as to the inducement to promotion. That is what you alluded to when you said that the result of your experience was, that you certainly considered a policeman to be a partisan in the prosecution? -Yes. In other words, that he was actuated by the desire to secure a conviction?—Yes; I do not mean to say dishonestly so. Still that that was the operating motive upon his mind; that he fancied that a crime had been committed, and wished to secure a conviction ?-Yes. You have given an answer which appears to me rather inconsistent with that; you have stated that in your experience you think that the policemen have acted invariably well?-Yes. Do you conceive that a man acts invariably well when the motive of his conduct is to secure a conviction? It may be a perfectly praiseworthy and honest motive. I can easily believe that a policeman might wish to procure the conviction of a man whom he believed to be guilty. I should rather imagine that the object of a person of your position and intelligence would be to elicit the truth? If my impression was that a man had committed a crime, I should wish him to be punished. If you yourself, in the course of investigating the case, having even that impression upon your mind, hit upon a witness who could give evidence favourable to the accused, I am sure that a person of your intelligence would consider it your duty that he should be called and examined upon the prosecution?-Certainly. From your observation, do you think that a policeman intrusted with the management of the case, and actuated by the motives which you describe, if he discovered that there was a witness not necessary for the prosecution, but who could give evidence favourable to the accused, would call that witness?—No, he would not. Mr. Phillimore. Do you consider that that would be praiseworthy?-I should consider that he would be guilty of a breach of his duty if he brought up witnesses who were not witnesses for the prosecution. But suppose that the witness might say something in favour of the prosecution, but still might say something in favour of the prisoner?-That is an instance of the want of some superior officer, to whom the policeman should refer, or by whom he should be guided. Mr. Miles.-In the preliminary investigations, which of necessity are often conducted by a policeman, is he not bound to state all that he knows upon oath, before a warrant is issued, or, if he has the prisoner in custody, what has taken place at the time that the charge has been made?-He is bound to state on oath all that he knows which is evidence, but anything that he had heard about another witness, of course, would not be evidence, and therefore he would not be bound to state that..... Mr. Phillimore-Supposing a case where the magistrate, from mistake, refused to bind over witnesses who really were material in the opinion of the judge, would you in that case allow the judge to certify that the witnesses were material, and that their expenses should be paid?--Yes, I think so; I think an unlimited power of allowing the expenses of prisoners' witnesses would re quire to be most scrupulously exercised, otherwise it might have an evil tendency. But you think that with that check it might be safely done?-I think so; I think it is a great hardship upon prisoners in many instances; although perhaps the Committee is not aware that any one accused at the Central Criminal Court may get a subpoena for 1s., which compels the attendance of any person upon whom it is served. He can summon four witnesses at the expense of 1s.; and then, whether he be poor or whether he be rich, if he can afford to pay 1s. for a subpoena, his friends can serve that subpoena upon anybody whom he chooses to point out; and the person is liable to be indicted if he does not come in obedience to it, without the payment of a farthing. In criminal cases no tender of expenses is necessary. .... Still we know that it often does happen that witnesses go away after waiting two or three days at the assizes?-Yes, I have frequently met with instances, when I have been sitting in the office on the circuit taxing costs, where witnesses have come and said that they had not a sixpence or a penny to get anything to eat, and that they must go; in several cases even of witnesses for the prosecution I have taken upon myself the risk of advancing them money; and in one instance I met with a reward-the witness's expenses were disallowed, and I lost in consequence. Sir A. J. E. Cockburn, her Majesty's Attorney-General, a Member of the Committee, examined. Mr. Phillimore.-Will you be good enough to tell the Committee what are your views as to the evils of the present system, and the manner in which they might be remedied?-Perhaps you will allow me to state, first, that I have had a good deal of experience with regard to the administration of the criminal law, quite independently of the office which I have the honour to hold. I practised a long while at quarter sessions, and was very extensively employed in the criminal court, on circuit, before I got into civil business. I got into civil business through the means of the criminal business. I was after that recorder of Southampton for some years, and have been since recorder of Bristol, so that I have seen a good deal of criminal business in one way and another; and I am satisfied that the present system, although upon the whole it works efficiently, is open to serious exception, and is capable of great improvement. I think it very often happens that cases are brought to trial which are only imperfectly got up, and that they break down from the want of some superintending and controlling power to get the evidence together, and to see that it is complete. Magistrates commit, thinking that there is sufficient evidence to satisfy the legal requirements of the case; and when the matter comes to be sifted in court, upon the cross-examination of counsel and the watchful superintendence of the judge, who is bound to see that not only is there moral proof, but also legal proof of guilt, it turns out that some link or other is wanting which greater experience and knowledge of the subject in the intermediate stage of preparation would have supplied; and then the case breaks down, and a guilty man is acquitted, which I look upon as a very serious evil. Every case in which a man is manifestly, to the observation of the bystanders, guilty, and nevertheless escapes, produces the notion that there is a chance of escape for the guilty, and that no doubt operates as an encouragement to crime. Again, I think that there are many cases brought into court which ought not to come there, in which the offence is either so trifling, or the proof so defective, that it is not desirable that the case should be brought to trial at all. The magistrate hesitates to discharge the accused, because he feels that he is taking a great responsibility upon himself in doing so; he at the same time feels that the case will be more thoroughly sifted, and that the man, if he is innocent, will be acquitted, and therefore he thinks that the safer course is to send him for trial; the result is again acquittal; and the more acquittals there are, I am satisfied the worse it is; independently of which, you are doing a very grievous injustice to a man who is unnecessarily sent to gaol and put upon his trial. Of course he is subject to the grievance of imprisonment, and to the harassment of a trial, and the degradation which attaches to a man being placed in a dock as a criminal. There is also the contamination of the gaol, whereby, in a great many cases, a man who goes in innocent comes out morally contaminated. I cannot help thinking, therefore, that it would be a most essential improvement in our administration of justice if there were some superintending authority, which should see, before cases are brought to trial, that the proof is as complete as it can be made; and, on the other hand, where cases are sent to trial which ought not to be sent, might interpose and stop them. Again, I think there are many cases of collusion, in which, instead of the prosecutions being gone on with, by arrangement between the parties, either they are not taken before the grand jury, or the witnesses absent themselves, or they do not give the evidence which they ought to do, and so guilty parties get off. I think such cases as those might be very materially diminished if you had a controlling power watching over them. People would not venture to act thus if they knew that there was an officer whose business it was to watch them, and in case of collusion to bring them to punishment. There is a large class of cases also in which criminal justice is resorted to for the mere purpose of enforcing civil rights. A man institutes a suit in Chancery to obtain redress against what he believes to be extortion or other injustice; he is defeated there, and he then resorts to an indictment for perjury or conspiracy, or one of that class of indictments, and very often he is perfectly right: some gross extortion or other abuse has been shielded by the perjury of the party immediately concerned, or there has been a conspiracy. I have known instances of conspiracies where indictments have been preferred and true bills have been found; the case has been brought into court, and at the last moment it has been compromised, because the person guilty of the offence, seeing punishment impending, has made terms with his adversary, and so escaped. In all these cases, supposing the prosecutions honest ones, and that offences have really been committed, it is desirable that the parties who have been guilty of conspiracy or perjury, or any offence of that nature, should not escape by merely making a pecuniary arrangement with the prosecutors. I think, therefore, it would be very desirable that there should be a public prosecutor, under whose sanction indictments and prosecutions should be conducted, and without whose sanction they should not be compromised. I know that, on different occasions, (I can certainly call to mind two instances), Lord Campbell, from the Bench, with reference to such cases, has publicly addressed me, sitting in court as Attorney-General, pointing out to me the necessity of having a public prosecutor to prevent scandals in the administration of justice. It was that which, in the first place, induced me to turn my attention to the subject, and when the Chairman first brought his bill into Parliament, I at once stated that the bill would immediately receive the consideration of her Majesty's Government, and I stated that I was induced to take that course in consequence of what my Lord Campbell had said to me, which I communicated on that occasion to some of the members of the Government who were sitting upon the Treasury bench. Mr. Philipps.-Do you think that the evil of these acquittals is an entirely unmixed one; do you not think it possible that if persons were not put upon their trial, except there were almost a dead certainty of a conviction, it would lead to a great number of people going about without, as it were, any notice being taken of them, the public mind being satisfied; do you think that more mischief is produced by a man being acquitted in court, from the knowledge of its being from failure of proof, than if his case were not taken up at all in the first instance?-Then I think it would be better, in that point of view, if the public prosecutor stood up in court and said, “I have no case to sustain against this man, and I assent to his acquittal." I think that would be better than putting him through the course of a trial, which looks as if those who are conducting the public justice of the country think there is a case against him, when in point of fact there is not. Mr. Phillimore.-You have mentioned the opinion of the present Lord Chief Justice, which I must say has been expressed to me in equally strong terms, as to the necessity of appointing a public prosecutor; did you ever happen to hear my Lord Denman express the same opinion?-I do not think I ever did; I have always understood that he entertained it very strongly, but I never heard him say so from the judgment-seat. I will add another, to my mind, very serious evil which I have observed very often myself, sitting as recorder, and that is the manner in which policemen mix themselves up with these prosecutions. I must say that I think it is a great scandal (to use no milder term) to see a case brought into court by one of the inferior ministers of the law such as a policeman. I do not think it is consistent with the proper administration of public justice, in a great country like this, that you should have a subordinate officer, who is merely the keeper of the prisoner, clothing himself with the func tions of a public prosecutor. I think it has also this further mischievous effect. I have observed often, and have had occasion to notice it in court, how policemen become over-zealous in the conduct of prosecutions. I can quite account for it now; what we have heard throws light upon it. I was not aware of the circumstance (I refer to what has been said by the gentleman who has been examined here to-day) that the pro motion of policemen is made to depend upon the pro secutions which they successfully conduct. One knows perfectly well the class of men from whom policemen are selected. I quite concur in what has been said, that generally speaking their conduct is very excellent; but one does frequently meet with instances the contrary, as everybody knows; and a temptation of that kind to such a man is a very strong one: if he is told that his promotion is to depend upon the number of cases which he can bring to a successful termination in the conviction of accused persons, that must produce a tendency to desire convictions. One knows how subject human nature is to be biased by interested motives. If you tell a man in that grade of life that he is to become a police sergeant, or inspector, if he can succeed in convicting a certain number of persons, the tendency is to convert him into an over-zealous and over-officious person. Then the mischief is, that a policeman being supposed to be a person removed from all undue influences, who has not that bias upon his mind which the private prosecutor has, both the court and the jury, to my certain knowledge, attach the greatest importance to his testimony. When you are dealing with the prosecutor, you know him to be a man who comes smarting under a sense of injury; he has been robbed, or he has been beaten, or his premises have been set on fire, or he has sustained some other injury, and he comes there smarting with this sense of wrong, and naturally desirous of bringing down the vengeance of the law upon the man who has injured him; you know him to be labouring under those feelings, and you make allowance for them; you do not 1856. Mr. Phillimore.-Does it occur to you as an evil, that there should not be some person to whom the poorest man might go and desire him to conduct his case, when an offence has been committed against him? I think so. blame him because he feels in that way; it is natural | which have their jurisdictions throughout the country? that he should do so; but dealing with him as a wit--Certainly. ness, you know that you have a party more or less Mr. Phillimore.-Have you any doubt that your interested, and you therefore exercise a watchful cau- observations refer generally to the administration of tion as to admitting the whole of his statements. When justice? I know very well, from my experience at you get a policeman, you get a minister, though a very assizes in former times, that the policemen constantly subordinate minister, of justice, and you look upon him bring up the witnesses. It is not convenient to the local as a person upon whom you may therefore rely; and I attorney to come all the way to the assizes or the sesown that it was not till I became a criminal judge that sions; he has a single case, and says, "I cannot trouble I saw the necessity of exercising watchfulness over myself with this; the policeman will take it up;" and them, without imputing undue motives to them. I see very often the policeman brings it up without any attorthat they take such an interest in the prosecution, by ney at all. The case is not one worth the while of the getting credit for the intelligence, and energy, and skill magistrates' clerk, who is generally the prosecutor, in which they shew while getting the witnesses together my experience, to take up; perhaps it is the only case and bringing them to the court, and in bringing the pro- from that division, and it is left to the policeman. secution to a successful issue, that I have become very Mr. Miles.-Does not it often occur on the western sensibly alive to the necessity of watching their evi- circuit that neither attorney nor counsel are employed? dence carefully. Then there is another thing: the-That is very common, and then the policeman takes policeman is generally the first man who comes into the case up. contact with the prisoner, and I find that, in the generality of instances, the policeman puts questions to the prisoner. Even if he does not put questions to him, the prisoner is naturally inclined, in the excitement of the moment, to make statements to the policeman. Those statements are very often of the greatest importance, and lead constantly to convictions, when the rest of the evidence would be deficient for that purpose. It is of the last importance that you should have those statements, when they are made, reproduced with the most perfect fidelity and the most scrupulous accuracy. But if you have a policeman who is already over-zealous in the cause, the slightest difference in a word or two, a little more colour, a little more complexion, given to the prisoner's statement, makes the difference between the man being convicted or not. Therefore I think it is of the last importance that policemen should be kept strictly to their functions as policemen-as persons to apprehend and to have the custody of prisoners, and not as persons who are to mix themselves up in the conduct of a prosecution, whereby they acquire a bias infinitely stronger than that which, as was truly observed to-day, must, under any circumstances, naturally attach itself to their evidence. I quite agree that there are many cases in which the evidence brought before the magistrates is insufficient, in which it requires to be filled out, and that you want intelligent men, accustomed to these cases, to ferret out the evidence, and get the witnesses, and so complete the case; but I think that that should be done under the superintendence of some man of higher intelligence, and whose conduct is more immediately responsible to higher authority, who should see that men employed for such purposes do not exceed their duty; and I think that it ought to be done by policemen who are not mixed up with the particular case, who are not the persons who apprehended the prisoner, or who are to give evidence on the trial, but that they should be men employed merely for that particular purpose. As it stands now, I believe there is often injustice done, and a great deal of dissatisfaction produced. I see very often in courts of justice, upon the cross-examination of policemen, or the questions put by the presiding judge, that the answers given by policemen produce considerable dissatisfaction in the minds of the surrounding audience, and I think that is unsatisfactory. I think one should endeavour, as much as possible, to make the administration of justice find its immediate response of satisfaction in the minds of the persons who observe what is going on. Upon the whole, therefore, I certainly am very strongly of opinion that prosecutions would be more satisfactorily conducted if we had some one to intervene between the apprehension of the prisoner and the bringing of the case into court. Mr. Miles.-The observations which you have made as to policemen are more applicable to towns corporate Is it one of those things which any citizen has a right to demand of society?-I think so. In very many cases, on the other hand, it may be said that a person injured knows perfectly well, practically speaking, that if he goes before a magistrate, and says he has a charge to make against a particular individual, the magistrate will grant a summons or a warrant, as the case may be; this again will be put into the hands of an officer, and then the party against whom the charge is intended to be preferred will be brought before the magistrate, and if the case is well-founded against him, he will be committed for trial, or required to find bail, as the case may be; and the prosecutor knows perfectly well that if he goes and presents a bill to the grand jury, that bill will be properly dealt with, and the man will be brought to trial. Where it appears to me that the shoe pinches is this, that in such a case there may be a very good case for a conviction, supposing you have all the evidence which is necessary; but this man has not the means for getting it together, nor sufficient information as to the precise nature of the evidence which will constitute legal proof of the offence; and therefore, though an offence has been really committed, and he has sustained an injury thereby, and the party offending ought to be brought to justice, he is brought to trial, but is not brought to justice; he is acquitted where he should be convicted. In the case, for instance, of a murder, and there being no relations or friends of the murdered party, there is no one to conduct the prosecution?-No; but, at the same time, somebody or other would be bound over. If a man goes before the magistrate, and says that his wife or relative has been murdered, and that he desires to prosecute, the magistrate would take care to bind some one over to prosecute; but suppose a difficulty in getting the evidence, the prosecutor gets no assistance, except the warrant which the magistrate issues, and perhaps a policeman is put into motion, or in some cases the parish is bound over to prosecute. The parish has no immediate interest in the matter beyond just discharging sufficiently the duty imposed upon it, so as not to forfeit the recognisances which the magistrate has caused some one to enter into. But that is not the way, I think, in which public justice should be conducted; there should be some one to watch over the case, and see that it is brought to a proper termination one way or the other. Again: I have often felt that where an attorney is employed by a private prosecutor, for the purpose of bringing a case to trial, the attorney considers it too much as a matter of professional importance to himself. I have known instances on circuit in which, as counsel for the prosecution, I have found it my duty to moderate the over-zealous and inordinate desire of the prosecuting attorney to get a conviction. He looks upon it, that if he succeeds, it will be the means of getting him further business. Nay, I am bound to add, that I think sometimes even counsel themselves are not altogether free from this kind of desire to get a conviction, because it gives them a professional triumph, after which they are likely to be employed in other cases; it places them in a position of superiority to their competitors and rivals. Now, I think, if you had a prosecutor permanently established, who should hold a high position, in which it would be his duty to see public justice administered, in which he would exercise a sort of combined function of advocate and of magistrate, all that he would feel himself bound to do, and beyond which he would feel that he was bound not to go, would be to see, that, if in his internal conviction there was a case of crime, the prosecution of that crime should be carried to a successful issue; but if he had the slightest doubt or hesitation about it, he would be bound to place before the court and jury all that could make in favour of the prisoner, as well as all that could make against him. Nobody knows better than the Chairman that in theory that is the principle upon which a prosecuting counsel is bound to act; but I must say, as the result of my experience, I do not think that it is always adhered to as strictly as it should be, and in particular on the part of prosecuting attornies. I have seen over-zealousness on their part which I have more than once had occasion to reprehend and control. Therefore, though it is better that there should be an attorney to conduct the prosecution than that there should be none, I think it would be very much better to have a permanent and public officer to do it. evils might be counteracted?—Yes; I may say in the beginning that my first impression was, that the magistrates' clerks might be made useful agents for the purpose of prosecutions; but, in the first place, there is this difficulty, that unless you put them on salaries, I think it would never do. However incapable they may be of inducing a magistrate to commit a man for the mere purpose of getting the costs upon the prosecution, still there would always be a suspicion about it in the minds both of the accused and of the public, which I think would be very distressing to them and very undesirable, and I do not think that would do. Occasionally it might, almost unconsciously to the man himself, just make the turning point in a case of any importance, whether the clerk should say "commit," or "do not commit." At all events, they should be removed from such a suspicion, and they should be put on salaries. But then I fear you could not put them on sufficient salaries. If you were to take the individual items of each clerk's duty with reference to prosecutions, and give him a salary only commensurate to that, you could not confine the clerk's business and duties simply to the functions of magistrate's clerk and public prosecutor. He would, therefore, always have other business to attend to, and we all know that, generally speaking, the professional business of a solicitor, who is a magistrate's clerk, (for they are almost always attornies in the country), forms by far the greater and more important portion of his business. I cannot, therefore, help thinking, that if you want to have efficient officers always available for the purposes of criminal justice, you should have persons whose exclusive duty it would be to attend to that alone. Unless you have men who are to devote their whole time to it, and who are responsible, in respect of it, to some higher authority, I do not think you will ever get the thing So as to make the elucidation of truth, instead of a thoroughly and efficiently done. Therefore I should professional triumph, the object?-Just so. Of course, prefer, unless there is some very great disproportion in whoever the higher authority was, whether the Attor-point of expense, which I do not believe, district agents ney-General or some other person, the agent would be to magistrates' clerks. responsible to him for the proper performance of his duties, but he would not have a personal interest in managing the prosecution. (To be continued). CROSSED CHEQUES.-Mr. Apsley Pellatt has brought in a bill which provides that a cheque crossed with the name of any banker shall be payable to such banker only; that a cheque crossed "and Company" shall be payable only to some banker; and a cheque crossed to more than one banker (not being partners) may be refused payment. Lord Stanley.-Would there not be equally a desire to succeed in a conviction, in order to avoid damaging his professional reputation; would not that desire exist equally in an officer conducting a prosecution on the part of the public, as it does now on the part of the counsel conducting the prosecution?-Hardly so, and for this reason, he would have achieved his position, and would have no competition to apprehend. I should be rather disposed to be apprehensive (and it is a drawback, I own, to what I think would otherwise be the superior system of public prosecution) of his becoming remiss; that having no one with whom to compete, "1. Because the order of reference not having dihaving nothing further to achieve, having got his posi-rected any inquiry whether a writ of summons would tion, and therefore having no longer an interest in that respect, he would rather, on the contrary, have a tendency to be less vigilant. Your idea of such an officer is, that he would have achieved his position, and would have nothing higher to look to ?—Yes; I assume that you appoint a district agent, who would have a fixed salary, and who would have nothing to gain by the number of prosecutions, or his success in conducting them; I should be apprehensive that so long as he applied such an amount of diligence and such an amount of skill as did not lay him open to any reprehension on the part of the superior authority, he might have a tendency to become remiss and negligent, rather than a tendency to shew overzeal. You have told us in great measure the evils which appear to you to arise from the present system from the want of a responsible person; have you turned your attention at all to the remedy by which those LIFE PEERAGES.-The following protest has been signed by Lords Cranworth, Granville, Panmure, and seven other noble Lords: "Dissentient, entitle Lord Wensleydale to sit and vote in this House, the report of the Committee of Privileges purports to decide a question not submitted to them. "2. Because, according to the uniform opinions of the highest legal authorities for above two centuries and a half, the Crown has the prerogative of creating & peer for life, with all the privileges of the hereditary peerage, except that of transmitting his honours to his descendants. "3. Because the creation of a peerage for life, with a limitation in the patent to collateral relatives, has been common even in modern times, and no such patent would have been valid if the prerogative contended for did not exist. "4. Because any subject of the Crown who has received a writ of summons to this House is entitled to take his seat according to the exigency of his writ, and there is no principle or precedent warranting the House in refusing to admit him." |