Appendix CASE ONE - Collection Point® | The Total Digital Asset ...

206 Legal History in the Making
appoint an apparently unlimited number of local prosecutors was seen as
an egregious opportunity for patronage. 21 It was an example, in Sir William
Harcourt's words, of 'one of the most growing evils in this country, the
centralization of patronage in the hands of the Executive Government'. 22
In the eyes of one member it was an attempt to create a Ministry of Justice
under another name. 23 It would be inefficient declared another since: 'All
Treasury prosecutions partook more or less of jobbery and always cost too
much'. 24 In the mind of one Tory member it would strike at the heart of the
national character:
There was nothing which could be more prejudicial to the English character than
to imitate the example of various foreign countries, and teach people to look
to the Government for everything. If people would not look after their own
property, it was not right that they should be able to ask the Government to do
it for them. 25
There was opposition too from special interests and Harcourt declared that
an earlier Liberal Bill had broken down because it had been opposed by: 26
the most formidable body except the Licensed Victuallers, in the country - for
everybody knows that they exercise an influence over hon. Members which is not
equalled by any except Licensed Victuallers -1 mean Solicitors.
There was nevertheless, by this time, recognition among leaders on both
sides of the House that action was needed and that, while traditional anxieties
must be met, there was an overriding duty on Parliament to exercise the law.
Farrer Herschell, later a Liberal Chancellor, reminded the House that 'every
act which the law constitutes a crime is, as such, an offence not against the
individual injured but against the community or State'. 27
The compromise which emerged from the committee stage on the Prosecution
of Offences Bill in 1879 was indeed a 'tentative' measure. When
Sir John Blossett Maule Q.C. began work as the first Director of Public
Prosecutions in January 1880 he, a single assistant, 28 and four clerks were
temporarily housed in the Home Office building and empowered 'to institute,
undertake and carry on such criminal proceedings as might be prescribed by
regulations under the act or, in a special case, be directed by the Attorney
General'. The Act imposed a further duty upon the Director to give advice
to chief officers of police, clerks to justices and other persons in accordance
21
Mr. Williams, ibid., at col. 967.
22
Sir W.V. Harcourt, ibid., at col. 978.
23
Mr. Mitchell Henry, ibid., at col. 987.
24
Mr. Williams, ibid., at col. 967. Williams went on to cite the Tichbourne case citing the cost at
over £100,000. In fact it only cost the still massive amount of £60,000, Report (1884), Evidence of A.
Stephenson.
25
Mr. Floyer, Hansard (14 March 1879), at col. 984.
26
Sir W.V. Harcourt, ibid., at col. 978.
27
Sir F. Herschell, ibid., at cols. 973-74.
28
The Act did in fact authorize a maximum of six such assistants.