Star. — London, England, 1824-04-07 00:00:00

, - \ far for the relief attelemdstil'of Scotch and Irish Vagrants during . the last year. Mt. C. PELHAM pNtponed to Thursday, the 22d of May, his Motion of Resolutions, shewinl the utility of Parliament being oc casionally holden IR ticker capitals of the United Kingdom, which pod fur tp-n3i ar. H OA merited a Petition from the Licensed 'Victuatlers of the Town of Gravesend, praying fur the repeal of the Duty on Excise Licenses.—Ordered te be printed. • . Mr. HONEY WOOD presented Petitions from the inhabitants of Dartford and Tonbridge, praying fur the Abolition of Negro Slavery. Sir C. HULSE presented similar Petitions front the Borough of West Loot and the Parish of Callan, in the County of Cornwall. Lord A. 11A NlluroN presented a similar Petition from 27,000 of the Inhabitants.of Glasgow. • General GASCOY NE observed that this was the only Petition on the subject which considered the justice of the case as well as ita• humanity, and recommended the indemnification of the Planters itt the Colonies for any loss they might sustain by the emancipation of their slaves. Lord A. HAMILTON then presented a similar Petition front New Lanark. Mr. ILSMITH presented a similar Petition from Fenny Strat ford. Lord W. BENTINCK presented a similar Petition from Mans field.—These Petitions were severally ordered to he printed. Mr. PHILLIPS wished to know front the Right Honourable Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) whether any pro gress had been made towards the equalisation of the duties paid upon goods imported in foreign and British ships? A duty of Ave per cent. was paid, for example, upon certain goods imported in foreign bottoms,which were exempt ft om the duty if brought in British ships. lie understood some arrangement had taken place with reference to this subject between the British and Prussian Government, which he was surprised not to have seen noticed in the Orders in Council. The CII A NCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that the subject to which the Honourable Member alluded had certainly been a matter of discussion between the Government of this country and that of his Prussian Majesty, and certain arrangements had in consequence been entered into, but it had not been thought advise alV•e to isspe any Orders in Council respecting those arrangements. A Message front the Lords announced that their Lordships had passed the Silk Duties' Bill without any amendment. 'Die ATTORNEY- GEN ER A L gave notice that he would, on Thursday next, britfg in a Bill founded upon the Resolutions of the Committee for giving compensation for the loss of offices under the County Courts' Act. CHURCH LIVINGS IN IRELAND. Mr. BUTTERWORTH presented a Petition from the Rev. John Hamilton, of Rosaea, complaining of the mode in which the Bishop of Kill:doe had bestowed the appointments to vacant benefices in his diocese, in favour of his own relations, to the prejudice of the diocese. . Mr. GOULBURN defended the Bishop from the charge imputed to him by the Petitioner. There had only occurred five vacancies during the time he had presided over the diocese, two of which he had filled up certainly by appointing some relations of his own, but they were persons fully qualified,and every way . eligihle for the appointments; the other three had been given to Curates, two of whom he (Mr. Goulburu) happened to have a personal knowledge of, from having been co temporary with them at College, and he could speak with confidence of their eminent qualifications. The Petitioner had not always entertained the same opinion of the Bishop's conduct as he had stated in his Petitioa, or at least he had not always spoken of it in the same terms, for he had in his possession a letter of his, in which he cOmmended the Bishop for his attention to the interests of the Curates in his diocese. . Mr. C. 14. HUTCHINSON said, the situation of the Curates in Ireland, who were in general extreuaely ill paid, required particular consideration, and he hoped the Right Honourable Gentleman would bestow some portion of attention cn the subject. Sir J. NEWPORT said, the whole system of Church patronage in Ireland stood yreatly is need of amelio ration; but he despaired of any improvement so long as pluralities were :dlowed to exist. On the motion for the Petition being printed, Mr. GOULBURN put it to the Gentlemen opposite, whether it was desirable ty. allow the of a Pe tition which spoke in such terms as were made use of in this instance of the conduct of a distinguished Prelate of the Established Church of Ireland ? Mr. CALCRAFI' said, he' could not answer the op peal of the Right Honourable Gentleman, not having beard the Petition lead. He had, however, gathered its purport in some measure from what had fallen from the Right. lion. Gentleman, and he must say, that it did appear to him that the subject to which the Petition re lated, was one that claimed the gravest consideration. After a few words from Mr. GOULDURN and Mr. IturrErtwoattl, the Petition was ordered to Le printed. SALT DUTIES. _ Mr. WODEHOUSE moved for returns of the total number of Excise Prosecutions carried on within the last six years, for the recovery of penalties for the non payment of the Salt Duties; with the amount of pe nalties actually recovered; distinguishing the respective amounts for Scotland and Ireland. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that the lion. Member for Norfolk had put a question to him relative to the course which the Government were likely to adopt with reference to the restriction of the Salt Duties. Although he did not feel himself bound to give a positive answer to this question, he felt no hesitation in saying, that upon the expiration of the present duties, in January next, every effort will be made to reduce their amount in future. For himself he could only say, that he felt every disposition to do so ; but as the subject of taxation properly belonged to the House, and not to him, ha did not feel himself bound to say more upon the subject at that moment. Mr. CALCIt API' rose, not to object to the production of the Returns moved for by the lion. Gentleman, but to express his surprise at tire declaration of the Chan cellor of the Exchequer, that the salt duties, which it was confidently expected would expire on the Ist of January next, were to continue after that peliod. He c,,uld nor, he repeated, help expressing his surprise at tilis bleach of Pat liamentary faith—(Year)—and at the tone in which the Right lion. Gentleman spoke on the subject. It the Right Hon. Gentleman did not fill his present situation at the time this promise was made to the public, he was however a Minister and a Member of that flouse, and as such a party to that promise. What reliance he (Mr. Calcraft) asked could in future be placed o r the i4mth of Parliament, if a measure of this odious n au: e were to be continued after a solemn understand " in; that it should be repealed ? He was glad, how. ‘;11:1, that tbis opportunity had been arforded him of expres.sing his sentiments upon the subject, in the face, not only of _Parliament, but of the country at large.— He owned he felt great hesitation in believing that the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), all whose previous acts had ben m il k e d by so much consideration, would lend bitnself to such a breach of faith. If an increase of taxation were wanted, he thought the continuance of this tax the:most invidious roodenf effecting it; and he could not think, if once the principle were admitted, that Governmeot krrould stop at 2s. a bushel as at present, but raise it, whenever necessity required, to I ss. a bushel, as before. Mr. GORDQN thought. the Salt Tax a g m eat gm iev- Ste= to the agricultural interests; bursas. theme were Wiser tales still snore oppressive, he bad no objection, if some of these were reiaatled, that. the salt Julie• should be ca.:tinned some time longer, and with this sitilderstancling he should support the proposition of the ltight Hon. Gentleman. Sir J. WROTTESLEY, Mr. W. &turn, Mr. H. GURNEY, Sir M. ItioLEy, and Lbrd MILTON, *seterally pressed their objection to the continuance of the duties. Mr. HUME wished to put a question to the Hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hurries) relative to the state of the Excise Laws. He (Mr. flame) had last Session presented several Petitions complaining of the grievances which attached to those laws, and he had received a promise lion: the Hon. Gentleman that means would be taken in the preseat Sessiou to bring in an Act to sim plify and consolidate them into one statute. He (Mr. Ilume) now wished to know what had been done to. wards carrying that object into effect? Mr. HERII.IES said, the Honourable Member had misunderstood what he had stated upon a farmer occa sion with reference to the consolidation of the existing Excise Laws. He (Mr. Herries) bad certainly expressed his acquiescence in the objections made by the Honour able Member to certain parts of these laws, and he had ' expressed a hope that means might be taken to simplify them ; but the Honourable Member had mistaken what he (Mr. Herries) had said, if be supposed he meant to consolidate them into one Statute. They were too vo liminous for that purpose; and the only thing he (Mr. Ilerries) could hope to do would be to simplify and con solidate particular parts. With this view a Gentleman laid been employed to prepare a Statute, and no unne cessaty delay would be suffered to take place. But as the work was of a very laborious nature, sometime must naturally elapse before it could be got ready. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that he was not insensible to the objections which had so often been urged against the existing Excisa Laws. Among those was that alluded to by the Honourable Gentleman, that the only punishment to which smug gle:s wereliable was a fine; which, if they u eie unable or unwilling to pay, the necessary consequence was im prisonment. The Honourable Gentleman had truly ob served, that it was the usual course of the Treasury, in cases of this nature, to order the liberation of the pri soner : he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) thought, however, that some change in the laws, in this respect, was advisable, and that some other mode of punishment might be equally efficacious. He could not, however, pledge himself to any measure upon the subject, al though fully aware ct the inconvenience complained of by the Honourable Member. After a few words from Colonel DAVIES and Mr. CatcaarT, the Return was ordered; ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL TO PERSONS PROSECUTED FOR FELONY. Mr. G. LAMB said, that before he called the attention of the House to the motion of which he had riven notice, he wished to present a Petition from certain Individuals who favoured the object motion.—The Petition prayed that Counsel might be allowed to persons prosecuted. fur felony.—Ordered to be printed. Mr. GEORGE LAMB then rose to make his pro mised Motion, to allow the assistance of Counsel to persons tried for felony, as in the case of misdemea nours. In bringing this measure forward, he knew he should have to contend with the opinion of his Learned Friend opposite (the attorney-General), and several mentbers of that profession to which he had him self of iginally bolonged. But he had, on the other hand, the opinion of many of the greatest ornaments of the • Bar to support him, beginning with Mr. Justice Black stone ; and he was sure that he should be supported by every unlearned person in the country, by those who were unacquainted with the technicalities of the law, and who formed their decisions under the influence of unassisted reason and sound sense. What, he would ask any of his Learned Friends who had ever accompanied such a person to a Court of Justice, was the first com plaint which be uttered ? Was it not the want of a speech on the pat tof the accused? And if his Learned Friend would condescend to reason with the unleatned man upon such a subject, he was sure he would not have the best of the argument. He should now refer to the opinion of Mr. Justice Blackstone, who expressed himself in the following terms : " It is a settled rule at Common Law, that no Counsel shall be allowed a prisoner on his trial upon the general issue in any capital crime, unless some point of law should arise proper to be debated. .1 rule which, however it may be palliated under cover of that no. ble declaration of the law, when rightly understood, that the Judge ,I shall be Counsel for the prisoner, that is, shall see that the proceed- ings against him are legal and strictly regular, seems not to be of a piece with the rest of the treatment of prisoners by the English law. For upon what face of reason can that assistance be denied to save the lite of a man which is yet allowed hint in prosecutions for every petty trespass? Nor indeed is it, strictly speaking, a part of our ancient law; for The Mirror having observed the necessity of Coun sel in civil suits, ' Who know how to forward and defend the cause by the rules and customs of the realm,' immediately afterwards sub joins, ' And more necessary are they for defence upon indictments and appeals of felony than upon other trivial causes.' " Such was the opinion of Mr. Justice Blackstone. It was his object to fill up a gap in the Criminal Jurispru dence between treason and misdemeanour. He had al ready stated some opinions of the great sages of the law, who were in his favour. Lord Nottingham had said, that there was no necessity for Counsel for the prisoner, because the facts on which he was condemned should be so clear that no Counsel should be able to an swer it. He quoted other authorities to the same effect. It had been said, that the Court was always Counsel for the prisoner; but the Court was always Counsel for all the parties that came before them. He wished that the maxim should be expunged from all law books that the Judge was Counsel for the prisoner. When a Judge once put a question, which fixed the guilt of a prisoner, the latter said, ‘‘ Ah, my Lord, had you been really my Counsel, you would not have asked that question." The time might come, when a prisoner's defence would de pend on such disinterested advocates as Lord Chief Jus tice Jefferies, Judges Page and Ayscough. In many cases, facts were only known to the prisoner himself, which would be of infinite advantage to him in the hands of an able Advocate. He would not refer to some recent cases, for fear of being accused of endeavour ing to bring discredit on the administration of justice. Such a case as one of infirmities, like those of Lord Lovat, who declared that he could make no defence for himself; and his case was felt to be so hard, that the chief of the Managers for the House of Commons in Lord Lovat's impeachment, Sir William Yonge, imme diately after brought in a Bill to allow persons accused of High Treason to be defended by Counsel. He al luded to the ruffian who had disgraced the County of p i l e e r r s ) I. l ° l b l' y b c y he the had bestowed on, stupidmur a d d e m r iorf.ithioins theyfriend ; and so many believed that not one felon mole would em- I ploy Counsel than at present. If it was objected that the speech of a prisoner's Counsel would employ much time, hic answer was, t!iat it would get rid of long cross-exa minations. in many , nati t o e iis.lts, important for the satisfaction of the cases, that a speech should be made , for the prisoner. • He thought nothing of stirring the passion;; because that might be objected against . the rn ployment of Counsel in cases of misdemeanour. lie could see no evil whaftver frettn allowing Counsel to speak, but the greateit good to the administration of impartial justice. He then moved for leave to bring in a Bill to allow persons aecirsed of felony toemploy Coun sel. as in cases of misdemeanour. • Mr. NORTH had always considered the administra tion of justice in this country as one of our noblest in stitutions; and he should above all 11 ice praised the anxious care of the Bench to exclude everything from a trial that was not strictly evidence. The prisoner was now allowed Counsel in all legal points, and to examine and cross-examine the witnesses. Besides the Judge always took care that nothing was received that was not strictly evidence according to the severest rules of law ; and, lastly, that a verdict of guilty could not be recorded until the whole of the Jury wele agreed as to the prisoner's guilt. At present the Counsel for the prosecution confined his statement perfectly colonilesl, and without a single aggravating epithet. This he did from a principle of honour, pity, and humanity, more, binding than any rules of law. This would not be the case if Counsel were allowed to employ all their in genuity and eloquence in behalf of the prisoner. They might tell him what aught to be, but he told them what would be. A sober Court of Justice would he turned into an arena for two ingenious legal com batants. That which the Counsel would say in favour of a prisoner would not go into the Jury-box with the same weight as what fell from the Judge. In many cases the Judge would hive all his faculties tasked to do away the false imin - essions raised by an able Counsel,. and by so doing he would become an advocate against the prisoner, instead of being one for him. Sir JAMES MACKINTOSH said it would scarcely be denied by those who thought it right that a prisoner should defend himself at all, that he was entitled to the 'trans of defending himself fully and adequately ; and in three-fourths of the criminal cases which were tried, this could only be done by the assistance of Counsel. In Scotland, and the United States of America, the right of a full hearing by Counsel—not of a hearing by Coun sel under connivance, like that which took place in Eng land—the right of an uninterrupted hearing by Counsel was allowed to felons ; and any inconvenience that arose from that indulgence he had yet to learn. As to the origin of the peculiar enactment, all parties might not be agreed ; and, with respect to the reasonableness, he would cite an opinion of some curiosity to the House in a moment. Sir John H iwles, the Solicitor- General of William 111. treated the prohibition against felons employing Counsel to defend them, as having originated out of the general poverty of such persons and their inability to pay fees; and thought that, in this way, a custom had grown up to be treated as a law.— Then, for an opinion upon the sense of the law, the house should hear what had been said of it by Judge Jefferies —an individual whom no one probably would accuse of being a speculating or dilettante lawyer. Judge Jef feries, who, whatever had been his vices, had been a man of the soundest and most vigorous intellect ; and, indeed, it might be said, almost to the disgrace of com prehensive understandings, that when he was not intoxi cated, or suffering under disease, or distracted by party fury, a more powerful Judge than that atrocious and infamous man had scarcely ever sat upon the bench ; Judge Jefferies, upon the trial of a non-conforming clergyman named Rosewald, (a kind of offender whom he was not in the habit of sprinkling with rose-water), had said, speaking of the very law which was now in question before the House, " It is a hard case, certainly, that a man may have Counsel, and his witnesses sworn, if he is tried for a twopenny trespass; and that yet the same is refused to him in a case of treason or felony, which affects his life." Now it is worth while to observe, that Sir George Jefferies ranked the grievance which he (Sir James Mackintosh) was opposing, with two other grievances, which the policy of the law had since re moved. He agreed in all the praise which the Hon. and Learned Member opposite had bestowed upon the crimi nal law of England—he said " upon the criminal law," because he by no means included the penal enactments in the same measure of approbation; but the criminal law had not always been in the state in which we now saw it. For a long time the criminal law had borne traces of the barbarity of the age in which it had been con structed. Let it be remembered, that the refusal in cases of felony to allow witnesses to be sworn for the pri soner, which, us it regarded the effect upon a Jury, was tantamount to allowing him no witnesses at all—that the refusal to furnish any means of compelling the at tendance of witnesses under such circumstances, which was in fact leaving the prisoner without defence, unless where persons came voluntarily to assist him—that the making a Jury punishable bfa " writ of attaint," if they returned a " false verdict," as it was called, against the King, and not punishable by any process if they found a false verdict against the prisoner—let it be re membered that these practices, so calculated to defeat every chance of justice, were all coeval with the law which the House was now called upon to alter, and had all been got rid of, one after the other, in the face of speeches as powerful as that which had just been made by the Honourable and Learned Member for Plymp , ton Earle.. In the year 1696, again, had come the Act which gave the benefit of Counsel to persons charged with treason ; and it was curious to remark that the speeches against that Act (as far as they were reported) had contained every argument which the Honourable and Learned Member had been urging. The preamble to that Act was worth attention—it was called, "An Act in order that persons charged with high treason should have the means of making a full and sufficient defence." Now change only one word, and the same title might do for the Bill of the Honourable Mover on the present occasion (Mr. Lamb); and if the House threw out such a measure, what was it—let them consider—that they were refusing? And, upon principle, he wished to hear what difference there was between cases of trea son and cases of felony ? It was said, that the person charged with treason was entitled to the higher protec tion, on account of the rank of the adversary with which he had to contend ; but he (Sir James Mackintosh) said, that in fact, the man accused of felony stood in most need of protection ; for . pc! sons charged with trea son were commonly persons of education and fa culty, and capable, up to a certain point, of defending themselves, while the felons came from among the most ignorant and helpless class of the community. The Honourable and Learned Member (Sir J. Mackintosh) then alluded to the case of Thurtell, for the purpose of • spewing that the argument of his lion. Friend (Mr. Lamb) had been misunderstood. Ile would just take occasion to say, in parenthesis, that lie exceedingly con demned the perverted sympathy which had prevailed in some part of the public mind towards one of the most atrocious ruffians that had ever di br aced a country; and, with respect to the defence he had male s if any doubt of his gat could have existert that Jettatt must have removed it ; in fact, the strange, wild, pee. vetted, theatrical desire and feeling which possessed the unfortunate man in all he said, seemed to have rendered him quite regardless of his life ; but the argument of the Hon. Member for Dungarvon, as far as it had touched upon the case of Thurtell, was, that Counsel should be allowed to prisoners, in order, as far as possible, to equalize their power in point of talents ; because, where men were di iven to the necessity of relying, under all circumstances, upon themselves, it would -Ise seen at once that the particular faculty, or want of (acuity, in a prisoner, might make a material difference iu his fate. For the objection that suffering Counsel to address a Jury on the part of an accused perion (a felon) would oblige the Counsel for the prosecution to state the case against him more strongly—that in this way the pantie: would become inflamed by the heat of of -pate, or by the desire of professional reputation—and that do Court, in fact, would be turned ieto an arena ue,-; which the rival advocates would openly content, the stake for which they fought being the life death of of a human being—he did not think this cte jection required a very particular ans..% er. Ile re lied upon the presence of the Judge, and upon &.; feeling of the Counsel themselves, to prevent any im• proper demonstrations of eagerness or passion; and, after all—suppose the effect anticipated to be pro. duced—he had never yet heard that a contest of talent between persons deeply interested was not, in every case, the surest mode of arriving at the' truth. He (Sir J. Mackintosh) could cite opinions in abundance, and not of speculators or philosophers, in support of the princi. pie of the Bill which his Honourable Friend was intro ducing; but he thought that the reason of the thing. without any authorities, was more than sufficiently ob. vious. lie thanked the llealourable Member who had introduced the question, for though he, as Sir Edward (2 , ke observed, who sees an) thing which requires correction, and points it out for the examinatioe .of the Government or the Legislature, does but pay the debt which every man owes, nut to the profession of the lass only, but to his country. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL admitted that this was indeed no light and trivial question, but one of the deepest and gravest importance. He did ion concur in the proposition now made for effecting an alteration in the criminal jurisprudence, which, in his opini.n, tended most extremely to the disadvantage of justice. His Ha nourable and Learned Friend, the Member for knares borough, had gone back to the early history of the law, ' and had shewn the defective state in which it once stood, and yet the House would do well to observe, that great as those defects were, the then state of the law had its supporters against any innovation, the same as it had at this day. It should be recollected that, until the reign of Queen Anne, no party accused of felony could call witnesses to be examined for the defence on oath ; and. strange as it might appear, the old practice was vindi cated in opposition to the new one introduced under the Statute, on the grounds of humanity and tenderness to the prisoner. The Hon. and Lear reed I%l.onber was not so happy in his authorities as he seemed to suppose, be cause there was none of all which he hail cited which bore immediately upon the question. The • marks of Judge Jefferies were not founded on the state of the law as tt now existed, but upon the state of the law at that period. At that time a party accused of felony could have no Counsel to assist him in the trial. Counsel might stay in the Court, but apart from the prisoner, with whom they could have no communication; they were not al lowed to put any question, or suggest any doubtful point of law. But if the prisoner, likely to be a weak unlettered man, could suggest any doubt in matter of law, the Court determined first if the question of law should be entertained, and then assigned Counsel to argue it. But if his Hon. and Learned Friend would de pend upon authorities, he world call to his recollection one of the very highest which could he named by any lawyer in criminal jurisdiction, a Judge, wbc, by a very singular phrase, had been styled the Magua Charta of criminal law—he alluded to Judge Foster, who stated that he had heard all the arguments upon this very subject, and admitted that they were very plausible. but came to a decision the opposite to that of the Ho nourable and Learned Member. He would invite the at tention of the House to the state of the law as it now stood. Nothing could be conceived more iinpartial e cool, and considerate than the proceedings in Courts of Criminal Justice—there could be no course more entirely favourable to the developement of the truth—the greatest order, no extraordinary excitement, temperate, candid in quiry, by parties almost wholly disinterested—these were the aspects which were presented in a criminal trial. They should pause before they hastily undertook to sub ' vert so excellent an order of things, before they con sented to put to hazard the excellence of a long-tried system for the sake of pursuing a chimerical good. But was it the advantage of the prisoner which his Honour able and Learned Driend sought? At present, the Judge was of Counsel for the accused in' trials for felony. But if the Counsel for the defence were to' make a speech full of inflammation and exaggeration, which must inevitably happen, then it would be replied to by the Judge in his charge, and he would thus become of Counsel against the prisoner. Was this the advantage which they would give the prisiner ? this was not all. If a speech were allowed for the defence, there must be another in reply ; not perhaps in all cases, but generally—at any rate, too frequently not to be considered in the argument. The case would then stand as in Nisi Pius practice, where the odds were always fin. the plaintiff—his Couesel had the first speech and the last—and the effects of the last impreee sic.ns were such, that he had seen cases in which they could not be craved even by the charge of the Judge, directed to that very object. Besides, the most able and experienced Counsel, tho-_e of most confirmed prac tice and self-pneession, would be generally engaged rat the side of tile prosecution, for on that side would be found the preponderance of wealth. As to the arrn meets drawn from the statute et William 111. the Hon. and Learned Member had not gone far enough with it. By that statute the prisoner tharged w Al treason wa; to have a list of the Jury—arbitrary challenges— a list of the witnesses—a copy of the indictment, by the contents of which, and the list of witnesses, the Counsel for the prosecution were bound. But the Honourable and Learned Member could never se riously wish to see the trial for felony assimilated to the trial for treason. A trial for treasodwas a war of intellect and wit, of 'passion and dezterityof heat and animation. The power of the Crown being enlisted against the prisoner—he did not speak it invi diously—it was necessary and allewalile for the Counsel of the prisoner to use all means to excite the popular feeling in his favour, almost to inflammation, in order to check the too 9 erreat weight of- -the power of the ~ Clown brought apIIAL 112;116 Upon the whale he fill corn undt to th cony the , this. jefal Ca the Read have Act, than fifth tion wits bra