Star. — London, England, 1826-04-26 00:00:00

•`' • AP.v , re into effect during the present Session. Should such a mischievous measure be again proposed next year u lie hoped that it would be resisted and pin down. returned his sincere thanks to the Peers of Scotland, for the energy and unanimity which they bad displayed on this occasion; and was happy, as an Irishman, to loin the open sanitaire which hey had drawn before both countries. He should also wish that some mea sure were passed, during the present Session, for the protection of the Provincial Banks in Ireland. The Marquis of LA NSDOWN, after the 'tatement of the Noble Earl (Liverpool) that in the state of the inquiry before the Select Committee it was not proba ble that the House would be called upon to legislate, with regard to Ireland and Scotland, during the pre sent Session, had no difficulty in acquiescing in the motion of that Noble Earl. He bad, indeed, intended himself in the Committee to propose that the Bill should not begin to operate till next October, in order that the action of the various measures introduced should be simultaneous. With respect to the Bill itself, he con tinued to think it essential to the establishment of a sound currency ; for as long as bank notes could be issued payable at a distant part of the country, the cir ciliation would be vicious, liable to sudden fluctuations, and calculated to defeat the great object in view—the re storation of a metallic currency. The Frostpontinent of % she present Bill would also be attended with some in • convenience—it would leave the Bank of Ireland in possession of the right of issuing notes payable only in Dublin, and might cmnpel the provincial Banks in self defence to use the same right, and fix t.me head-quat ter, Worcester, if they pleased, in England, for the payment of their notes, in which case Ireland would be inundated v ith paper, which could not be turned into gold except • at too great a distance to be made available ; or if the provincial banks did not adopt this expedient,they might be extinguished, and awn the country might be left at the mete,' of the Bank of Ireland, which by narrowing its issues might occasion the must serious inconvenience. Such a state of things ought somehow or other to be guarded against. It would also became impracticable to restore a metallic currency in the North of England, 1k the Scotch Bankers were permitted to issue small owes; for those notes would ants the Border , and fill the conti guous counties, the Scotch being liberally disposed to afford every accommodation of the kind to thtir English neighbours. Trusting that the Noble Earl would introduce some measure of safety with respect to Ireland, and that he would give his aid next Session to pass en effective Bill can the same subject as the present, he (the Marquis of Lansdown) should cheerfully acquiesce in the motion of the Noble Earl, that the Bill be committed that day three months. Earl ROSSLYN considered the fears of the Noble Marquis tespecting the irruption of small Scotch Bank notes into the North of England as perfectly visionary. had the Scotch uotes driven away gold from the Notch of England in 1797, when tbewhole English ciradation was gold ? The Earl of LIVERPOOL said, that the danger of auchan occurrence was not so great at that period; for then the public being accustomed to gold, the first feel ing with which paper was received was one of prejudice against it; but now that it had been in circulation more than thirty years, the taste might be changed, and if paper were ettingaished here, it would not be surprising that it should come across the Border. Were small notes to continue in Scotland, some measure ought certainly ur be adopted to prevent their introduction into Eng land. At present, however, the danger was not immi nent, as the English paper circulation was to last for three years longer, and the activity of the Bankers in Seethumberiand would counteract any over influx from Scotland. As to the Provincial Banks in Ireland they paid their notes •whore limed, because they had no bead quraters, like the Bank of Irelan d. at which they might make them payable. They, however, hada right eR choose one, .I.interkk, Cork, or Athlone, or any place hermit fifty miles of Dublin • and if they were unfairly pressed , they would be cornpktely justified in -wrecking that right. The Earl of LAUDERDALE stated, that if the landed prepnetors in the, county of Northumberland would declare that they would not receive their rents in notes, and • the hanters of Newcastle would only take notes at a discount, there would be no dauger of an influx from Scotland. 'The LORD CH A NCELbOR conceived that it would he the most difficult thing in the world,considering those notes to be Scotch in• their nature, to prevent them front traveling southwards. After a few words from the Earls of Listaatcx and CAISNAS. voo, the motion was agreed to. The East India Jury Bill was read a third time and passed, after a few words front the Marquis of Latisoowx. The Entailed Estate Purchase-money Regniation Bill, and the 'President of the Board of Trade Salary Bill went respectively Walla COMllatten and were reported.—Adjourned. HOUSE 01? COMMONS. Mr. CRAT7OID, front the Treasury, presented an Account of Salaries, fitc. of persons connected with that establishment.—Laid out the table. • Oa the nwthm of Mr. Alderman Wow), the Report of the New London Bridge • Bill wa.., brought up, and the 11111 and Amendment titdered to be engrossed. Mr. HOBIIOUSE brought up the Report of the Westminster Jail Mill, which, with Aineudsumin, was ordered to beengroased. Mr. A 11.13UT11 Nar moved the re-committal of the Charing Crosl Innptovement Bill to-morrow. Mr. Alderman W 001) moved the second reading of the Alders. gate Tithe Competition BM. Me Bill was read a second time and committed. • Lord CLIVE brought up the Report 01 the Liverpool and Bir mingham Canal Bill. A conversation ensued between Mr. CALCLIFT and Mr. STK= (who opposed the antelderation of the Report), and Lord Cues and DIL Larrserou (who supported the Report). The SPEAKER assured the Hun. Members, that he thought it ins mistvnt with the rules of the Howe for a report to be brought up end taken into consideration the same day, the usual time being seven days, altkoagb there were many instances in which the time bad been curtaikd, sod the Repose taken into coosideradoo a day or two alit - . Lord C t.IVF. then moved, that the Report should be taken into consideration to-morrow. The motion was agreed to, and the Report ordered for further Mr. CALCRA FT then presented a Votition from a Lady of the name of Jolansun, against this Bill. Mr. LITTLETON objected to the Petition, on the ground that as Mrs. Johnson had been in town, and had never attended the Comumktee, it was almost unfair to petition against the In, after snob neglect on bar part. Mr. CA LCRAFF explained, that it was net only an inconve nient but also an expensive manner of proceeding, in which she did nor feel disposed to enter upon.—The Petition was laid on the sable. The Hun. Mama also moved that the evidence before the Committee abastlil.be laid before the House.—Oriirred. Sir E. K NATCHB ULL moved *claim to be added to the New Corn Exchange Bill. The clause was read a tirst, second, and third time, and added to the Bill, which was read a third time and passed. Sir 'R. SH A W presented . a Petition, from a Congregation of Pro testant Dissenters in Swift's Alley, Dublin, against Slavery.-0e• dered to 6e printed. Mr. Downie presented a Petition from a Parish in Perthshire, and Mr. J. MAC/COME from three Parishes in Scotland. 4pg Aixst any alteration in the Banking Systeht of that country.—Referred to the Committee appointed to CW1111166 hito the Bank* System of Scotland and Ireland. Mr. CA LCII AFT presented h Petition from the Churchwardens and other Inhabitants of the parish of St, Olive, Hart.street. com plaining of the exotbitant exaction of Tithes by the present Incuiu bent of that Parish. Mr. Alderman lIRYDGES supported, in a few wards, the Petition. Mr. Alderman WOOD said he hoped this evil, which arorout of the modus fur Tithe at 9s. 9d. per pound,'would not 'pug escape the attention of the Legislature in the next Parliament. Mr. HUME, ;wetting the absence of the Right Hon. Secretary for the Home Dept' meta, who so can stonily advocated the interests of the Church, would have been glad to put it to that Right Hon. Geneeman whether this was n.)t a fair wound of complaint by the the the parishioners of this parish ? He was sorry to see the , peace of the Church arsd gae parkhioners invaded thus by selfish bickwings;:sissi particularly so since he ttn tlersteled that the difficulty of arrartgiqg the metier had 'creased byibe inettferenee of the Bishop of London bowel, sent Clergyman, who waiwillingjo stAe 1,20 W. a yestotel , ureon the ground that the tights of the Clergy to the Wyk not be patted with unless-ether interests in futurity were consulted. Such an interference he could not but reprobate as un worthy of that Prelate?' Indeed he must say, he acted rather like a firebrand in this instance than a friend to the peactof the Church. Mr. WYNNE said, that the cue was not a solitary one. The difficulties they complained of existed more or less In every Parish in the Metropolis. Mr. DEN MAN concurred in the opinion of the Ilea. Member for Montrose. After an observation from Mr. Caesar:, Mr. Secretary PEEL said, he could not let the oppor tunity pass without replying to what had fallen from the Hon. Gentleman opposite as to the conduct of the Bishop. The Hon. Member for Wareham had said that the Bishop was not very willing to acquiesce in the proposi.ion of the Parishi3ners; from personal know ledge he (Mr. Peel) begged to stssure the • House, that there existed, on the part of the Bishop, every feeling for an amicable adjustment of the differences, and neither he nor the Learned Pre. late despaired of an immediate adjustment. Mr. H UUE explained, after which the Petition was ordered to be printed. Sir F. BURDETT presented a Peti•ion from a large body of Komata Catholics, praying fur a restitution ad rights. The Hon. Baronet said, it would be unwise to comment otherwise than in general ttrms upon the subj ct. of the Petition. It was a claitn backed by the testimony of mote than six nt !lions of persons of re• sp,ctability, which claim could not be s t at rest until the block upon which it htti so long stumbled was removed. AU, however, that he felt it his duty to do, upon the• present occasion, was, to express a hope that at no very distant period the question would be decided. With this feeling, and trust ing that the House would give the Petition its earnest attention, he begged leave to move that it be received and read. Mr. BROUGHAM seconded the motion. tie agreed in the necessity for taking a more extended view of the case, though he did not consider the present motion applicable to such a discussion. The Petition having been read— .. Mr. BA NILES regretted that no steps were to be taken upon the subject this Session. He thought that the country could not be too guarded against the admission of Catholic Peers. Mr. W. SMITH did not see that the Church had much to ap. prebend from the admission of Catholic Peers. Mr. BROUGHAM presented a Petition from the same body of individuals, praying fur a repeal of the Act of Parliament for put ing down the Catholic Association. The Hon. Gentleman said he entirely agreed with the Hon. Baronet who presented the first Petition, in the necessity of refraining from entering too largely upon the question ; he must, however, say, that with respect to the present Petition, whenever that subject came before the House, he should be fully prepared to give it his support strenuously. The Petition was then read; it complained of the law by which the Association was suppressed, and prayed for its abolition.— Ordered to be printed. P SLAVS PROPRIRTORS. Mr. HUME presented a Petition from Augustus H. Beaumont, Plaster in Jamaica, at present raiding in London, praying an equitable regard to the interests of the Planters in their Slaves. The Hon. Member de precated a certain tone which had been used in the House and out of it, and much as he admired the cau tion and firmness evinced upon the subject, by the Se cretary for Foreign Affairs, he could not entirely ap prove of his statement, that 4he time may come when. the Colonists should appear contumacious, and if it did, the Parliament would not.appear to want power. For his part, he would be sorry that the Parliament and the Colonies did not concur in the proposed measure. He was most anxious that the nation, as a nation, should effect the change, but be did not wish that the measure should he completed at the expence of the unfortunate possessors of slave property. He was induced to present the Petition, not only from the geneaal topics which it embraced, but at the urgent request of the individual,who conceived his property to be endangered. He would now move that it be laid on the table. Mr. Secretary CANNING said, he had no wish to enter at present into the merits of the Petition, still less teas he disposed to answer the speech with which the Hon. Member bad thought proper to preface its intro duction. The Honourable Member must rest assured that the objects, to which he calle#4he attention of the House, have been provided for as far as they can be foreseen. would, at a future period, upon the in troduction of the motion of which the Honourable and Learned Member (Mr. Brougham) had given notice, have the opportunity of discussing the subject, and with considerable advantage to the whole question. But, in his opinion, the advantage which would be derived from the general consideration would -be much preju diced if a discussion, such as the present, founded upon partial or incidental Min, were mourned. Such Would have to effect, except that of raising the spirit of angry dis cutsion, which was nuw fortunately laid, and of extingui,hing that calm and temperate feeling, with which all must admit that a ques tion involving se many intense, and so many feelings should be approached. He would not trouble the BOOM with any further observations at present, nor show an example of violating that rule which he himself had laid down. The Petition was laid on the table. INSOLVENT LAW!): INDIA. Mr. BUMS presented a Petition from H. Ilowel, a free mer chant of India, complaining of the tyranny of creditors to their debtors, and praying for the enactment of an Insolvent Law in India. After a few words from Mr. W. Write, the Petition was laid on the table. Mr. Secretary CANNING presented a Petition from the Ma gistracy and Corporation of the !loyal Burgh of Crail, in the County of Fife, praying for the Abolition of Slavery.—Ordered to Ue ou the table. Lord NUGENT, as he intended to withdraw for the present his motion on the subject of the administration of justice in the Colonies, which stood for to day, would mertly state the general objects he had in view. One was for the regulation of the law between the Planters and the Colonial Legislature in the.first place, and bp rween the planter and the negro in the next. He also wished to abolish the higher offices of justice, and only to leave a Chief Justice, and a couple of Crown Law yers, with high salaries, in each of the three principal Islands. He would also prevent those Officers from holding any offices and property in the Islands, is order to guard against any undue bias in the decisions they would be called upon to make on property, in which they felt a personal interest. It was a great object to the. Proprietors of Slaves, who at p. *sent suffered ma , terlaUt front the alai-administration of justice, that a menure of this kind would be introduced. He trusted Government would take up the subject, as the Report sent to hirrr last night by the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wilmot Horton) evinced an anxiety en their pan to improved', administration of justice in the Colonies. Mr. WILMOT-11ORTON a,sureJ the Noble Lord that it was the intentiod of Goverement to undertake the task to which be allodad, and submit to the atten tion of. Parliament, ss soon as possible after a proper ennekleratien of the Report, sock measures as they deemed ad visable. Under these eireuesemetes, bethought it would be urine. cemary toenter at present into any consideratien of the subject.— , The needed was then wkitdrawn. TILONIit COUNILL Mr. G..LAMB rosy, in pursuance of his notice, to move for leave to bring in a Bill to entitle prisoners to Counsel on charges of 'felony. Since be last brought this measure before the consideration of the House, nothing had occurtol to chtpge his opinion, although i many circumstances to confirm it, among a hich not the least important was the eumple alike Right Hon. Secret:my for the Home Department. He proceeded to quote various authorities, nding to.ehew . 4bat it was of the , very spirit of th ws of this countty to f permit deNtnce by.tountel: that great palladium of our liberties, .. Magna Charm," it 4ss declared that ....ir no one should be tried but per judicium miter's out per legem terra ;" and this, he contended, referred as well to charges of felony as any other, inasmuch as at that period - the Crown had not taken on itself the office of prosecutor. He cited. Whitelock and Justice Black- Aone's Commentaries to the -same eff. et. Even Justice Jeffries, when called on to give his opinion on this sub ject, declared that it was not exactly in accordar.ce with the. spirit of the Enlish laws to refuse Comae' to prisoners. Lord Chief Justice Hale and Justice Atkins, on the trial of Lord Russen,expressed the same opinion ; and Sir Bartholomew Shower, who wrote a pamphlet . . in support of the sentence on that Nobleman, stated in it that he could not advocate the system of refusing Counsel to prisoners: Sir M. Forster, one of the most eminent criminal lawyers that had ever sat on the Bench, had also delivered his opinion, most elaborately, to the same effect, in his work on the Crown Laws, in which he says, " At Common Law, no Counsel is allowed upon the issue of guilty or not guilty in any capital case whatsoever, except upon questions of law ; and then only in doubtful, not in plain, cases.—E am far from disputing the propriety of this rule while it is confined to ftlory, and the lowa class of treasons concerning the coin and the seals. I know many things have been thrown out upon this subject, and inconveniences, some real, some imaginary, have been suggested by popular welters, who seent to have attended singly to those on one side of the question; but it is impttssible, in a state of imperfection, to keep clear of all inconveniences, though wisdom will always direct us to the course which is subject to the fewest and the least; and this is the utmost human wisdom can do." This was an age of improvements ; the hacknied phrase " the wisdom of our ancestors" was no longer a cabalis tic word of prohibition ; for improvements were daily introduced as well into the law as into the administration of it. Opposition might be made to his motion, in the same manner as last year, as being an innovation, but he could shield himself within the shade of a Right Hon. Secretary, whose Bill for the improvement of the Criminal Law was now on the table. If the Criminal Law could be improved in its enactments and specifications, could it not also be improved in its administration? If no improvement could be effected in the administration of the law, was it not strange to find that the property of the subject was to be protected by his Counsel in civil cases, while his life was to be left unprotected in criminal ones ? He could net, therefore, but regard the Bill of the Right Hon. Secretary as forming a strong prece dent for his measure. But it was said, " Where is the utility of your improvement? Is not the Judge Counsel for the prisoner.?" His answer to those two questions was easy and satisfactory. " The Judge is not Counsel for the prisoner, but for public justice ; it is the duty of the Judge to see that all proceedings are fairly con ducted on both sides." This opinion was founded upon conviction, it was strengthened by experience, and it was warranted by the highest authorities. He bad received communications on this subject from various parts of the country; among them was one from Exeter, containing an extract from the charge of Sir William Garrow to the Grand Jury of Devonshire, in August, 1824, in which the sentiments of the Learned Judge were explained, as condemning the practice of refusing the benefit of an Advocate to felons. The gi►ing Counsel power to speak in cases of treason had not led to any of the evil consequences which were .as vividly pictured. But if so much evil was appre hended from making the Judge reply on the Counsel, was that improved by making him, as at present, reply on the prisoner? Nothing, he thoukht, could be so objectionable as the Judge replying on the prisoner.— If the prisoner be his own advocate, he clearly labours lunder a great disadvantage, if he be a dull man ; but perhaps he labours under a still greater if he be a clever man. He remembered a case in which a pri soner, charged for a burglary, asked a witness " if he was sure it was quite dal k when the robbery was com mitted ?" The Judge, in charging the Jury, told them this was a circumstance very much to the disparage ment of the prisoner, for it was always a bad sign when a prisoner was so learned in the law. Be sides all this, it was quite impossible that a Judge could make himself so well acquainted with all the cir cumstances of the prisoner's case as a counsel specially retained for the purpose could. There was in fact no greater anomaly to be found except J ick Cade's law, which said " I will hang thee, if it is only because thou halt pleaded for thy life so well." No better proof of the evils resulting horn prisoners defending their own cases could be found than in the examples of Thurtell and Bellingham. Judges very rarely in ancient times, and still more so in modern times, lost their temper so as to reply in an improper way, or rubject themselves to the imputation of being Counsel against the prisoner. In regard to Bellingham's defence, it was a tissue of calumnies on third persons, such as would never have been hazarded by counsel, for no Judge could exercise over the prisoner the same control that he coi,ld over the counsel. Ooe of the advantages of this Bill would be, that there would not be so many perjured juries From his expetience in et iminal cow ts, he was quite sure that the verdict of a jury did not carry that con viction with it that it ought to do. The public know that if there be any doubt, the whole case will be te. vised and silted with the greatest care in the office of she Secretary for the Hom: Department before the sentence is carried into execution. Had we not lately seen the case of the man first tried for the robbery of Lord Cow per's house, who was reptieved almost at the foot of the gallows? Again, to mention another case: Catherine Ferris was convicted of perjury, but was afterwards foood innocent, and received the King's pardon. Such instances, which were by no means unfrequent, :hewed the necessity of there being Counsel for the prisoners who were brought to trial for charges of this nature. — It had beep objected to him, on a former occasion, that he bad dwelt too much on cases of treason, but it was impossible to separate the crimes of felony and treason, in this inquiry. What, he would a,k, was the reason why, when Peers were tried before the High Court of Parliament for felonies, even where no witnesses were called for the defence, yet the Counsel for the prosecu tion had the privilege of replying, as was proved in the Cases of Lord Ferrers, Lord Upon, and the Duchess of 'Kingston, in which last instance the privilege was claimed by Mr.Wedderburn, the then Solicitor General? It was not, however, forth. House to legislate for the Peerage. If they chose a bad or defective mode of trial, it was their own fault. It was not long since this House bad abolished trial by battle. Vet even in this barbarous mode of trial the sickly, the infirm, the woman, the infant, could choose a champion ; but In our Courts of Justice; where life is in far more peril, we deny the same privilege even to an iofant. Ile should, therefore, move for leave to bring in a Dill to enable pri , miners prosecuted fur felony to make their-den:tire by Counsel. The ATTORNEY GENERAL was saubfied tnet his Haas and beached Friend and hinise.l had etinelly is .view what would be best for the a 'rnini , tra ion of jos: rice; but after the fullest consideration he had been en abled to bestow upon the subject, and an anxious reference to all the authorities within his reach, he was persuaded that the change proposed would in its rffects he adverse to the calm, fair, dispassionate, and candid administration of criminal justice. The opinion of the Bar upon the question was, he believed, divided; of the opinions of the Bench he was not able particularly- to speak, but he had reason to think that it was unfavour able to the proposed alteration. But he was not to be determined by considerations f this kind—he would give his unbiassed and independent opinion upon the merits of the question, as far as his own expel ience and application had enabled him to form an opinion upon it. His Hon. and Learned Friend had said, that if he opposed the permission for Counsel to defend prisoners accused of felony, he ought in consistency to be adverse to the employment of Counsel in cases of miscleMeas nour, as the same arguments would equally apply td both. He admitted that they did; but what • he said was, that if the measure were a doubtful one, it ought to be adopted with extreme caution...as. it it were once allowed that persons accused of felony should be defended by Counsel, it would bt. imeos . .ible for them ever to retrace their stepse-a There was not an individual who heard him hut had been present at the administration of criminal justice; and he would appeal to them whether it was possible that proceedings could exhibit more temper, coolness, and fairness, than they did. It was true that an address was permitted by Counsel for the prosecution, but if they overstep the line of duty they are always corrected by the Judge. He did not mean to say that in no instance whatever had this practice been abused by the introduction of matter not strictly explanatory of the evidence which was to follow. But it was an abuse which the proper feelings of the Bar, and tbe , vigilatece of the Bench rendered extremely rare. After that ad dress came the evidence for the prosecution, which was heard calmly, deliberately, and cautiously. Then-fol lowed the case for the prisoner, conducted by his Goon sel, and lastly the Judge summed up the whole, not, as had sometimes been said, in the character of Conned for the prisoner, not as Counsel for either party, but as Counsel for both, so far as to see that the facts have been properly sifted, and that the law applieato the facts. He thus submits to the Jury a cairn, temperate, and dispassionate view of the whole case. What substitute, then, was offered in lieu of this? Yon are to excite a conflict, in which the zeal and emulation of Counsel, intent only on carrying their respective points, are to be brought into play, in place of the calm and solemn proceedings which now take place. In those criminal cases which came before the Court of King's Bench, he saw the effect of this daily. Counsel employed in a case of perjury or conspiracy displayed the s.me zeal, the same eagerness, the same desire to withdraw whatever might militate against the interest of their client, as in any civil action. The question then for the House to decide was, whether any advan tage was to be expected from this change ; or rather, whether these advantages were so great as to indoce them to hazard the excellent system now in rilWillte for the sake of the experiment? He put the que , tiots practically. Let them not depend upon the opinion of Sir Michael Forster or Mr. Justice Blackstone, but let them form a judgment for themselves upon a full con sideration of the subject. He had no personal feelings on one side of the question or the other; let him be con vinced by argument that the alteration would be bene. facial, and he would be quite ready to give it his.support. The chief objects in criminal proceedings was the full admission and the calm consideration of evidence: If Counsel were to be heard on behalf of the privner, it ' would be an anomaly unless the same rules,limitations, and conditions, were prescribed at 'in the superior Courts, in which, when evidence was called for the de fence, the plaintiff's Counsel had a right of reply. It was the most anxious question the Counsel for a de. fendant had to consider, whether, by calling witnesses, he should give to die plaintiff's Counsel, he having already produced the first impression, the advantage of producing also upon the minds of the Jury the last im pression ? It was infinitely better for the investigation of truth that the evidence should be heard fairly, fully, and impartially, on both sides, and afterwaxds calmly summed up by the Judge. One other observation was essential upon this subject. He had stated that the Judge was not to be considered as an advocate for the prisoner, hut it was of the utmost importance that the Judge should not appear adverse to the prisoner.— Now suppose the Counsel for the prisoner, as would fre quently occur, should deter Mille to sacrifice the advan tage of calling witnesses in order to secute What he might deem the greater advantage or making a speech not to be replied to. The Judge would, in this case, 1 e obliged to correct the fallacies of the Counsel for the prisoner, and as Judges were but men, it was.as.cliffi cult for them as for other men, when embatked upon a current of argument, to stop at the precise line, and thus an impression would be frequently cleated that the Judge had pressed hardly upon the prisoner, and that the unfavourable verdict was owing to him. He would then go back to the original question—is the present administration of justice defective? He would not say that the administration of the law was perfect, but be would aay that it was excellent, and hi was nit &trona -if ha. girding a change, and particularly a change which Its advocates in tended must be productive if the most inspirta.nt effects. His objections went to the whole principle of the proposed change, and it was therefore as well to state them wow as on any submission stage if the pr, bceeding.—(Hear, hear I) Mr. J. WILLIAMS said, that his Hon. Friend (the Attorney-General) had taken too professional and tech nical a view of the question, and had not considered the proposition in relation to the feelings of the people of England. In the indictment of Evans . for murder, at Manchester, the inhabitants of that town were di. vided in their opinions whether he was guilty or not, and it WAS necessary that criminal justice should be ad ministered, so that the people should have no doubt of its certainty, or of its impartiality. A man whose life was at stake was, from that circumstance, incapacitated Member, 01 am tried for felony—(A laugh)—l won't from making his defence. 44 When I," said the Hon. be my own Counsel. The proverb un that subject is known to everybody. Next, I shall be exceediagly dis inclined to have my Judge for my Counsel---(fiettr). I would much rather prefer my Hon. Friend (the At torney-General) if, indeed, he was not employed ex Ode against me—(al laugh)." In his expel ience he must say, that nothing could possibly be more unsatis factory than the appearance of persons accused, and without the aid if Counsel. They we re always miler the into en" of terror; their speeches were , therefore,injudronis, and dm whoa , spectacle deprived the audience of all idea al the accused person having a fair &Anse of defence. Mr. Secretary PEEL had been induced to give much consideration to the question before them. by the usue pleats which bed bast used by lee! Gentlemen on a