The Evening Star FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 1872.

Evening Star, Issue 3046, 22 November 1872, Page 2

The Evening Star FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 1872.

His Excellency’s genius, or Mr Yooel’s noting for him, discovered that the late session had been prolific in useful measures. Without denying that some useful work was done, we think it would be hard to imagine a session in which more work, whether useful or the reverse, was initiated and left undone. Among the measures which were strangled in their birth, not the least interesting was the proposal of Mr Steward for the abolition of Grand Juries. This is a matter which concerns everyone in the Colony, and the debate upon Mr Steward’s resolution, though short, was much more able and instructive than all the terrible outpouring which took place upon the question of who should occupy the Ministerial Benches. This is not the first time that the question of the continuation or discontinuation of the Grand Jury system has been brought forward. Mr Steward himself last year in a house numbering fifty-eight members, obtained twenty-four votes in favor of the abolition of Grand Juries ; and since that time it is probable that the number of those who would support that view has increased. We propose eery shortly to state the arguments which were used by the different speakers, and to show what seems to us the inevitable conclusion to which they lead, which is this—that if it is desirable to abolish Grand Juries, then it is advisable to abolish Petty Juries also ; the one is a logical necessity from the other. The arguments in favor of the abolition of the system arc mainly those : Firstly, there are other countries equally democratic and equally wellgoverned with New Zealand, where the work of the Grand Jury is done by a State Prosecutor. {Secondly, it is an unnecessary expense to the country, and a waste of time and consequent expense to the Grand Jurors themselves that they should be so employed. Thirdly, the Grand Jurors being men of (probably) superior intelligence and education, ought really to form part of the Petty Jury, which after all is the more important of the two. Fourthly, the Grand Jurors being men (as has been proved in several notable instances) either of weaker intelligence or of more easy conscience than other people, have frequently thwarted the course of justice. Fifthly, the division of jurors into two classes tends to produce a jealousy between different sections of the community—it is an unpleasant social distinction, which in a free country ought not to be tolerated. Our readers will notice the delicious contrast between the third and fourth arguments which we have adduced. Amusing as it is, the contradiction is even more absurd as it appears in Mr Steward’s own speech. After referring to certain supposed miscarriages of justice which had taken place, owing to the employment of Grand Juries, Mr Steward says—- “ Without more particularly specifying the absurd conclusions to which Grand Juries sometimes come, ho might say that the cases at Hokitika and Auckland which ho had quoted were by no means .exceptional He could not see that the retention of Grand Juries in any way facilitated the course of justice j on the

contrary, it acted as a hindrance, and eliminated from the Petty Jury a most intelligent class of man—me n who ought to bo above monetary considerations, and not liable to undue influence.” We must say that these two sentences in Mi- Steward’s speech were a puzzle to us, and we were obliged to rub our eyes and read them over several times before we could be sure that we understood them. But there they are in black and white in Hansard, and we suppose Mr Steward himself revised the copy of his speech from which they were printed. There were several minor arguments which were adduced in favor of the abolition of the Grand Jury system, but none of sufficient importance to need much comment. Mr Bathgate, who spoke at some length, went beside the (piestion. He occupied himself with attacking, not the Grand Jury system, but the system of private prosecutions, which is another matter altogether. We pass over his eulogiums upon the Scotch system, because it does not appear that the circumstances of Scotland are identical with those of New Zealand; nor is it right, even if they were, to found any argument upon what ought only to be used as an illustration. Mr Gisborne was the only member who spoke in favor of the continuance of the Grand Jury system ; and the suggestion which he made, that a Public Prosecutor should be appointed, not to supersede, but to assist and guide the Grand Jury, was a valuable one, and contains, as it seems to us, the real solution of the difficulty. The only other remarks made by him of any imporance consisted in quotations from a paper written in 1858 by Mr Montague Chambers, a distinguished English lawyer. These, though of great value, are too long for insertion. With regard to the fifth argument in favor of the abolition of the system which we have quoted above, it seems hardly worth while to allude to it at all. It was advanced by Mr Luck lE, and was only put forward with timidity. It is a social distinction, we suppose, though a very questionable one in these days, to be appointed a Justice of the Peace. And there are many other unavoidable distinctions of the same sort which, though they must of necessity exist, are too unimportant to be made a matter of serious argument. The only real objection which requires to he seriouslyconsidered as it seems to us is that which relates to the sacrilice of time, and the consequent expense to the Grand Jurors themselves involved in their attendance. For Mr Gisborne’s suggestion that a Public Prosecutor should assist and guide the Grand Jury appears to us to solve every other difficulty, it would prevent mistakes arising from ignorance on the part of the Grand Jurors, and it would also prevent any unnecessary expense in the attendance of witnesses; for we assume that the Public Prosecutor would have the management of the ease immediately after it left the hands of the committing magistrate. The only question left for decision, therefore, is this Is the employment of Grand Jurors accompanied with benefits equivalent to the sacrifice which they make in giving their attendance, Now, if we are going in for speed and cheapness only, the argument will, if logically carried to its conclusion, require the abolition of Petty Juries, For it is clear that the work of the Petty Jury might, and probably in most oases would, he much more efficiently done by an experienced Judge acting alone. And the whole affair might bo accomplished in a few days, instead of as at present involving a delay, usually, of several months. Here then, wc will for the present leave the question. It really amounts to this ; which of the two is more important —cheapness and speed, or the maintenance of that strong public interest in the proceedings of the Courts of Justice, which is the main safeguard of public liberty, and which arises in a very great measure from the Jury system.