The Sun. — London, England, 1824-04-07 00:00:00

anent would only afford an opportunity for the irritation of . .naiti?s and exciting opposition. lord HOLLAND, in consequence of what he had heard - from the other side, and more particularly from the Noble Earl who spoke last, would give his cordial and , arm support to the Ka Ile did not altogether concur in the necessity of passing .-the Bill immediately, but, taking the object to be as described, lie was most friendly to it. The 'petition was then . laid on the table, and the House re . solved into a Committee on the Bill. Some verbal amend- Etna were made, and the Report was ordered to be brought tU-1110710W. SILK TRADE. t7n the motion of the Earl of IA vr:e.rooL, the Silk Duties Atpswai Bill was read a third time and passed.—Adjourned. HOUSE - OF CONITSION'4. - - - Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET presented a .pctition -horn an individual named William Walker, against the Bill So/ Building a .new Theatre at Cheltenham.—Referred to the Vommittee. Sir W. LEMON preaented a.-petition from the town. of Fal /mouth, in favour of the Bill for the more easy revovery of Small !_.4 tits. —Laii; on the table. COM BINA TI ON LAWS. Mr. M A NSFI ELI) presented a petition in favour of the ix al of the Combination Laws, from Leicester.—Laid on the Ce J. NEWPORT presented six petitions from the Coon_ fts of Westmeath and Tipperary against the Tythe Compo zottion Act.—Laid on the table. NEGRO - ET,AA VERY. Petitions were rresentmi against Negro -Slavery from Dart-, testi and Tunbridge by Mr. HO NETWOOD from West Looe sLd Callan, in the county of Cornwall, bySir C. HULIIE ; from Clasgow and New Lanark by Lord A. HAMILTON : from Fenny Stratford by Mr. IL SAfir-zr, and from Mansfield by Lord W. BENTINCIC. EXCISE LICENSES. A petition was presented against the Duty on Excise Li censes from the Licensed Victuallers of Gravesend, by Mr. MONEYWOOD.—Laid on the table. MAGISTRATES OF INVERNESS. Lord A. !L presented a petition from a person "tamed Alexander Macdonald, complaining that acts of griev ous•oppression had been committed by the Magistrates of In verness. The LORD ADVOCATE said that the Noble Lord had, ty courtesy, communicated the petition to him yesterday, and that the information was perfectly new to him. He would assure the Noble Lord that he would cause immediate inquiry to be made; but-he must protest against the practice of bring ing individuals before the House upon charges of this nature, when they were unable do be heard in explanation of their con duct. If the act charged by the petition had been committed, he had no hesitation in saying that it was highly illegal and im proper ; but he had no doubt that when the matter was in limed into the allegations of the petition would be'found un true, knowing, as he did, the respectable characters of the Ma gistrates of Inverness. Lord A. HAMILTON said he was by no means satisfied with the answer of the Learned Lord. because it was the same he had received last year when a similar petition was' present ed against the same parties. If the Learned Lord wrote to in quire into the truth of the facts, he could do so by consenting to an inquiry on the part of that House. He should move the House to appoint such an inquiry, and he trusted the Learned Lord would not object to it. If the Learned Lord wished for delay he would give notice, and defer the motion till the day after to-morrow. The LORD ADVOCATE said that the Noble Lord seemed to treat the case as one•which affected his official character-- He had nothing whatever to do with the Magistrates, and only pledged himself to inquire on their behalf. It involved no re sponsibility whatever on his part, and the Noble Lord might pursue what course he thought proper. Mr. KENNEDY said a few words, and the notice of a mo tion on the subject was fixed for Thursday. The petition was /aid on the table. Mr. Alderman WOOD presented a petition from certain •wners of property in the ..parish of Aldgate, against the St. Catharine Dock 13111. Referred to the Committee. Sir F. BLAKE presented a petition from the Tanners and others of the town of Berwick, against the hides and Skins' on the table. ASSESSED TAXES. Mr. R. SMITH presented a petition from St. Leonard's, Shorcditeli, praying a repeal of the Assessed Taxes.—Ordered to be printed. Similar petitions were presented from Ely, by Mr. COL -so it NE ; from Walter Webster. of Hull; and from the inha bitants of Mull, by Mr. SYKES—Laid on the fable. Mr. R. COIABURNE presented a petition from Ely in fa =rota of the County Courts Bill. Laid on the table. ESTCOURT gave noti‘le that on Friday next he should move for have to bring in a Bill to amend the laws relating to itogu. - is and Vagabonds. ifTpon the motion of the same Hon. Member, returns were „ordered to be made of the sums of money paid by the Trea surers of the different Counties last year, for the relief and re moval of Scotch and Irish Vagrants. Mr. LITTLETON presented a petition from certain tom mon Brewers, complaining of the alteration in the Beer Du tics--Laid on the tame. Mr. C. PELHAM postponed the notice of his motion reia lin to the holding of Parliaments to the 27th of May. fel r. BUTTERWORTH presented a petition from an in dividual named Hamilton, but front the tone in which the Hon. Member spoke, and the petition not being read, we could only eullect that it complained generally of the allowance of plurali ties and union of parishes in the Irish Church, and preferred some charges of making improper appointments against the Bishop of Killaloe. Mr. GOULBURN thought it proper to say a few words upon the petition. It charged the Bishop of Killaloe with refusing to appoint to livings when they became vacant, in order teat they might be given to his own friends. During the Bishopric of the Noble Prelate, and ik fore he was translated to that of Fern, he had five presentations, two of which were given to his own friends, and the others to persons most worthy . to fill their situations. Any Gentleman connected with Ire land knew that the Petitioner was apt to form hasty and in "temperate judgments, and he was sure that he had now viewed his subject through some distorted medinin. If, however, he was correct in what he now said of the Bishop, his opinion of • him was very diarent front the opinion which he held in 1020. —lt was at that time that the Bishop was removed, and it wo' deemed proper to send him an address from the Clergy of the diocese. The address stated that he had embraced tho few opportunities which had occurred with regard to pre sentations in proMoting his own Clergy, and that his up. paintrnents were always such as to promote piety, the best foundation of a Church Establishment ; and this address was by Mr. J. Hamilton, who now presented the petition before the House Mr. C. HUTCHINSON made a few observations, recom mewling the Right Hon. Gentleman to turn his attention to the improvement of the condition of Curates in Ireland. tiir J.. NEWPORT deprecated the system of pluralities arising out of the Union of parishes. Mr. BUTTERWORTH made some further observations, Which were inaudible. After some conversation between Mr. GOTTLBURN, Mr. CALCItAPT, aad Mr. iItITTERWOIVEII, the petition was or dered to be printed. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, gave notice of a motion for lltursday, which, we believe, was for leave to bring in a Bill to grant compensations to Officers injured by the County Csittrts Bill. SALT TAX. WODEHOUSE 'roved far returns of the total number of Excise Prosecutions, and the amount of penalties levied for oir.:nces against the Salt Duty regulations within the last six years, distinguisbing each year. He wished to ask the Right lion. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the event of the Salt Tax being retained, the restrictions and penalties wriuld not be in a considerable degree removed. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it was oat for him to anticipate Any decision of the House, but if the dittfshould be continued, he flattered himself that he should be able to find means of relaxing the penalties arising out of the high duty. Further than that it was impossible for him to pledge himself upon a subject that was yet to come before the tir.CALCRAFT had obtained from making any observa tions upon the question, when the Hon. Member yesterday gave his notice, in compliance with the etiquette of the House. But he hailed this opportunity of proclaiming to the public, that the House was about to be tempted to break through a solemn compact with the people, and to me!ntain this odious and op pressive duty. lie could not but express his surprise also at the coca manner in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke of this proposed breach of faith, the compact having been made when he was a Member of that House and a Mint stor. What was the faith of the House good for if it were to • be broken through because an Hon. Member, to serve the wishes of Government, came forward with a motion to con tinue the tax, and to give to tic public something which he considered better for their interests ? There was no tai which could be repealed with so much advantage to the public and nods the repeal of which would be received with so much satis faction- He was surprised that the Right lion. Gentleman, after the principles he had put forward, should think of al ow hag the tarto , be continued :—and for what? To continue the „ pa tronage. He wss glad to' have this opportunity of calling., the attention of every Member of the Rouse, and of every mem- 1 of the community, to the intentions of the Hon. Member. Mr. WODETIOUSE should not have said a word, but for the assertion of the Hon. Member, that he proposed this nom sore in accordance with the wishes of Government. He denied' the charge. He said, when he gave the notice, that he did it after having had an extensive communication with Members of both sides of the: House. With regard to what the Hon. Mem ber had said about a " breach of faith," that must be a mere bug-hear.; because it was impossible that the House should be hound to maintain any of its acts which did not prove to be for the benefit of the people.. Mr. CALCRAFT explained. Mr. GORDON said that, in that part of Wiltshire which he represented where a large quantity of salt was consumed, the consumers did not wish for a removal of the duty. If the amount were taken off some other tax that pressed upon the agricultural interest, he should support the motion of the Hon. M ember. Mr. BRIGHT said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them what he meant to do with these Excise Regulations, but he would take leave to ask him what he had already don since the removal of the ten shillingsabushel. If the duty weree not abolished altogether, they should have kept up a legion of Excise Officers, and all those vexatious restrictions which are so justly complained of. Sir J. WROTTESLEY was convinced, that for the Agri cultural Interest, no tax could be so beneficially repealed. .Mr. W. SMITH said he understood the remaining duty to produce 360 2 0001. if that were the case, and the officers could be reduced, he thought no tax would produce the same amount with so little inconvenience to the public., Mr. HUDSON Gu rot MY and Mr. JONES made some observa tions, which were inaudible. Lord .M 4 LION maintained that this was the most injurious tax that could exist, as well for the people at large as for the interests of commerce and the operatians of science. Sir M. W.RIDLE Y thought the proper course for the Chan cellor of the Exchequer was at once to blot out the duty altoge ther_and lessen the number of taxes, so us to simplify the system of taxation as much as possible. Mr. HUM E said he would take this opportunity of asking a question as to what was the intention of Government relative to the amelioration of the Excise Laws. He understood that a pledge had been given'for the introduction of a measure to consolidate the whole of the laws, and to remove many of the causes of grievance. lie was more convinced every d a y th a t no one could fo r m an idea of the oppressions and vexations which were sanctioned by the Excise Laws but • those who ex perienced them. Mr. BERRIES said it was not intended to propose a Ittw to consolidate the whole. It was thought impossible by one to effect the proposed change. But it was in con teniplation to bring forward several Bills, the object of each would be to consolidate the laws under some one particular head of Excise. Such Bills were in preparation. The work was a very long one, and if it could not be brought forward so soon as might be wish ed he hoped the House and the Hon. Gentleman would make some allowance for the delay. Mr. M. A. TAYLOR thought a change was desirable, and p su u c n h is a hm o e n n e t wasitshhoouut havingltl protect those offended.wh who were now exposed to An lion. Member wished to know if any bill were intended to be introduced to alter the law relating to the Customs. At present the Smuggler was liable to enonnoas penalties, for which he was often imprisoned, and must remain a pt . :3°l:er for life, if mercy were not extended to him by the Crown. He thought some alteration was necessary. The CHANCELLOR o(the EXCHEQUER was not in sensible to the objections urged against the law as it now stood. If the fines imposed on the smuggler were not paid, he was certainly liable to imprisonment. It was the custom of the Treasury, periodically, to take into consideration the cases of persons so confined, but he did not any that it might not be desirable that some other mode of punishment than line should be had recourse to in order to check smuggling. At the same time it was very important well to consider the subject before they altered the law, as various considerations might. render it inexpedient to punish that offence as a mis demeanor. Colonel DAVIES thought the strong temptation held out to smuggling•by the high duties would be more powerful than any law, and penalties upon penalties might be multiplied to op pose the evil in vain. Mr. CA LCILA FT offered a few words in reply, and the mo tion was agreed to. The LORD ADVOCATE of Scotland presented a petition from the Notaries of Berwick against the Attoinies' Bill.—Or dered to he printed. SC fl 00[4 ASSISTANTS. Mr. FIUME presented a petition from certain Schoolmasters' Assistants in Great Britain, complaining that many persons who had not the requisite qualifications, exercised their pro fession to their injury, and praying relief. The lion. Gentle man said though he had a great respect f or the pstitionerd, ha was wholly at to . the or their petition, but . d thought it his duty to bring before the house.—'l he petition was ordered to lie on the. table. Mr. HUME presented a petition from the Shoemakers of Dundee against the Combination Laws. The petition was re ferred to the Committee on the Laws relating to Artisans. TRADE WITH PRUSSIA. Mr. PHILLIPS said he had a question to put to the Chan cellar of the Exchequer. At present a duty of 5 per cent. may be charged on cotton imported in foreign ships, more than was charged on the same article imported in British ships. The Prussian Government had in consequence laid on a counteract ing duty. He was informed the English Government bad of fered to remit the extra duty on goods imported in Prussian vessels, if Prussia would withdraw her counteracting duty.— This, he understood, was decided upon, and that the respective duties were to cease from the 25th of this month. Such being the case, the question he had to ask was this, why an Order in 1 Council had not appeared on the subject? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER stated it to be perfectly true that discussions had been going on between Prussia and this Government relative to the duties imposed re spectively on goods imported on foreign ships. lie had every reason to believe, and indeed was pretty confident, that an ar rangement of the nature mentioned by the Honourable Gentle man had been agreed upon between the two Governments. The Honourable Gentleman wished to know why an order in Coun- cii had not issued on this subject. The agreement, if conclud ed, bad not been ratified, and till ratified it was not usual to take that course. understood the agreement had been ratified. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER assured the Honourable Gentleman that the ratification had not yet taken place. Mr. Nvl T HlTMOßE•presented a petition from certain Car pet %I' ravers and Spinners of raw Wool, praying for a reduc tion of the duties of woollen yarn.—The petition was ordered to be printed. Mr. Secretary PEEL presented a petition from the Western District of the County of Perth, against the Attornies' Bill.— Ordcred to lie on the table. A Message from the Lords announced their Lordships' As. sent to the Silk Duties Bill without amendment. OLD BAILEY JURORS. Mr. GEO. LAMB, before hinging forward the motion of which he had given notice, had a petition to present from certain individuals who were in the habit of serving on Juries at the Old Bailey. They stated, that with every wish earnestly to perform this duty, they had frequently felt embarrassed, and it had always sounded harshly in their ears to find the pri soner was precluded from addressing the Court by his CounseL They prayed the House to take this subject into their considera tion, and he begged to say he thought the prayer of it well en tided to their attention. The petition was ordered to be printed. COUNSEL IN CASES OF FELONY. Mr. GEO. LAMB now rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill, which, though not entirely a novelty, was not exactly like that which had been formerly brought in by the Hon. Member for Galway (Mr. R. Martin), to enable persons accused of cri minal offences to emplo7 Counsel to plead for them. He had taken this subject out of the hands of the Hon. Member for Galway with his perfect concurrence, and indeed he might say at his request, but perhaps he ought to apologise for doing so, as the Hon. Gentleman had such a way of getting Bills through the House, that perhaps left in his hands the measure would have • had a better chance of success. The difference between the Bill brought in by the Hon. Member for Galway, and that which he wished to introduce was this, the former Bill went to appoint Counsel tier persons to be tried for felonies as was done in cases of treason. He (Mr. George Lamb) in his Bill, did not propose to go so far. He did not propose that Counsel should be appointed, but merely that Counsel might be heard for a prisoner charged with a capital offence, as in the case of a misdemeanour or a civil action. He was aware that in proposing this he should be opposed by the long practice of the Courts—by the Attorney-General, and indeed, he believed, by nearly the whole of that profes sion to which he formerly had the honour to belong. His view of the subject was supported by many legal opinions beginning with that of Blackstone, and he believed by those of all learned persons. He would ask any Barrister if he had ever been accompanied by an unlearned person at a trial, who had not been disposed to complain of the want of Coun sel to speak for the defence ? Besides these opinions, he had the practice of English Courts on his side in the more early periods of our Constitution. Mr. Justice Blackstone had inquired, " On what force of reason is the assistance of Coun sel denied to save life, which may be claimed in every petty case of trespass, and in every civil action ; for, if important in these, how.mueh more necessary is such aid in cases of felony ?" From the time of Edward the First, the right of pleading for the accused had been recognized. The crown, in those titres, not being the general prosecutor, the ordinary course of pro ceeding, where wrong had been sustained, wax by an " appeal of robbery." This was sanctioned by the Statutes of West minster, under which, if the appellant failed to make good his charge he was liable to be punished with a year's imprison ment. The privileges which at those periods were claimed for the Crown, where the Crown was a party to a prosecution, had been abandoned by the Crown since the Treason Bills passed, and were now possessed by the private prosecutor. The Hon. Gentleman did not wish to propose any violent innovations which might make our old Lawyers startle in their graves ; but he wished to fill up the gap which existed between cases of misdemeanour and high treason, and to take from the subject prosecutor that privilege, which originally belonged to the Crown alone. He quoted Lord Coke, Lord Nottingham, and various legal authorities on this subject, and also the words used by the Regicide Cooke, on his defence, who had examined the cause of a prisoner, not being allowed Counsel, to be this : that the facts proved against bins ought to be so clearly proved as to render such assistance totally nugatory, and properly to convict him, so that his mouth should be stopp e d. H e thought it most unfortunate that it had ever been held " the Court could be Counsel for the prisoner." This, he main tained, the Court could not be. lie wished he could blot out the praise which had been given to the Judges for acting as Counsel for prisoners. In numerous ways this had produced evil consequences. One Judge, in a case for child murder, though the evidence was quite clear against the accused, had stopped the case as Counsel for the prisoner, because the questions had not been put whether the child was male or female, and this part of the indictment had not been made out. In another case, when a Judge had put a question, in order to fill up the chain of evidence, the prisoner had re marked--" Aye, aye, my Lord, had you been my counsel, you would not have asked that question." But Judges had , not always professed to be counsel for the prisoner. When Don Pantaleon Saa, in the reign of Charles the Second, was brought to trial, a nd claimed that the Court should act for him, he was assured " that the Court would be Counsel for him so far as to see justice done on all sides." No Judge could act fora prisoner with the same acuteness as Counsel could, how ever he m i g ht w i s h to do it. The Judge could only ere many k n ow the case from the depositions laid upon him ; but there w things which a prisoner could communicate to his Counsel , which it was i m portant that h e s h ould k now, an d which he could not con ve y to a Judge. Th e di st i nct i ons taken between the situations of Judge and Co unse l f or t h e prisoner were fre quent. In the case of a person of the name of Udall, in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, the prisoner haling asked how many of the Jurors he might challenge, was answered " I can't tell you, that I sit here as Judge, and not as Counsel. A si milar opinion had 'been expressed on the occasion df another trial in the same reign. He objected altogether to the idea of considering the Judge as Counsel for•the prisoner. There had been times, and though it was not to be expected it was possi ble that such times would return again, when this safeguard for humanjife would be found in Jeffries, a Page, or an Ays cough. He was aware that the Gentlemen opposite would be likely to say this is all very well, but what practical evil is there now to be made the subject of complaint ? He would say that lie thought it not enough that justice should be impartially adminstered, but kliat the Public should feel satisfied that it was so. If he were to comment on cases of modern date he should be thought to refleclon the Administration of justice in this country, which, in despite of the defect which he wished to remedy, commanding, as it ought to command, the admiration of the world. The cases in which the most marked injustice had occurred would be found in that collection of legalised r murders, the State Trials. What was the ground on which I Counsel were employed at all to defend persons under accusa tion; it was done as far as might be to give all parties the benefit of equal abilities to oppose to those with whom the charge originated. Were this not allowed how could age, in firmity, idiotcy, and insanity defend themselves. In the case of Lord Lovat, that Nobleman when tailed upon to defend him self had said, " is it possible for me to make a defence for my self ?—I came to your Lordships' bar at the hazard of my life. I fainted twice this Morning front having risen so early. Your Lordships will use your pleasure and dispose of tie as you think fit, but if I am not allowed the aid of Counsel, I cannot make a defence." Those wo r d s ma d e so much impression that shortly afterwards the chief manager of that impeachment, Sir W. Down, moved that House for leave to bring in a Bill to remedy the evil then complained of; and traitor as Lord Lova was to his King and country, it had been said in later times that the proceedings against him were not free from a touch of barbarity. In the case of a person who was insane, how affecting was the situation of the party accused when not in called upon to prove his own insanity, and to explain how it acted on him. On the trial of Lord Ferrers, the Noble Pri soner complained that he was reduced to the miserable ne cessity of tryin. , to prove his own want of understanding.__ But he (Mr. (i.'l4amb) would not rely so much on cases of real confirmed im....r.tty„ P ea r ' p c :b i le ' of mak e ing accul froma l'b'eben7cn.eeg. d;SU"tubC(tlln"llltarcdi been described b in capable Williams, when moving an arrest of judgment a nd he case of Lord Wintoun, whom he described to be not insane enough to have protection from the laws, and yet not sane enough for any good purpose. He did not propose to dwell on the evils experience, in modern times, but if he did he should refer t o th e case o f that ruffian in Hertfordshire who had lately occunied the public attention, and who had not only disgraced Himself, but had also made many others disgrace themselves by the stupid admiration which had been ex pressed on the subject of his conduct at the close of his career. He would ask those who had watched that man from the time of his arrest to that of his trial, if they did not believe that h e h a d been buoyed up, not b y the hope of ac farrago which h e h a d got toget h er, and thus quittal perh a p s, b u t by the exp ectation of cutting a figure by means of th e s illy going out of th e w orld with eclat, furnish a set-off against the guilt of the murderer in the lustre which would attach to the orator and the man. This resulted from that mode of proceed ing in criminal cases which he wished to correct, and which, in ma:ty eases, made the criterion of guilt, not the quantity of proof which might be adduced, but the degrees of ability possessed by the prisoner. But some objected to a change on account of the time which the trials would occupy if Counsel were heard application— line in Pope, which had no for the accused. u ngrTyhe Judges ewas a soon the sentence sign." This was a fallacy; but the second line, if any person of poeti cale supplyc of those who w e re fearful of th e a first, would be capable of easy ap p li talent c a t i o n would , to the objtions future length of criminal trial s ,_ " And wretches hang thatjurvmen may dine." He had seen many cases go to a Jury, in which had Counsel been heard he would not say the parties would have been ac quitted, hut their conviction would have been more satisfac tory to the Public. He had that night presented a petition from certain persons who were in the habit of serving as Jurors at the Old Bailey, stating the embarrassment which they some times felt on account of such assistance, as he contended it would be proper to give, being withheld from prisoners who were on trial. The aid of Counsel was particularly desirable in a case like that of Patch, wher e on l y c i rcu mstantial evidence could be brought against the prisoner. In such cases there was always a possibility that the prisoner might be innocent, and it was desir a ble that that possibility should be diminished as much as p oss ibl e , by allowing Counsel to repel those infer ences drawn on t h e p ar t of the p rosecution. He conc l u d e d b y moving--" For leave to bring in a Bill - to all persons prosecut ed for felony to defend themselves by Counsel as in cases of misdemeanor." Mr. NORTH had always considered the criminal justice of this country one of its noblest and justest boasts, and that which he should first point out the admiration of an enlightened foreigner. To such a person he, would point out the guarded and cautious m anner i n w hi c h evidence was received against the prisoner,,and every thing excluded which could not fairly be urged. Above all, he would point to the temperate and impartial conduct of the Judge who - presided over the pro ceedings. He would then explain- to the foreigner (he need not do so to the House) that in the first instance the prisoner was allowed.tbe assistance of Counsel as to matters of law, and fur ther by custom, now become sacred, he was allowed by Coun sel to examine and cross-examine witnesses. He would refer to the rule that the Judge was to a certain extent Counsel for the Prisoner, and in summing up, he was bound to tell the Jury, if they had any reasonable doubt on the question of guilt or innocence, it was their duty to give the prisoner the benefit of that doubt, and he would tell also that the law required una nimity, and a verdict could only be returned by a full consent inn- Jury. The Hon. Gentleman would give the accused some thing more. H would allow him the aid of Counsel to plead for him. He doubted whether the Honourable Gentleman had weighed all the consequences. As the lair stood, it was the practice of the Counsel 'f or t h e prosecut i on to give a bare naked detail of the facts to be proved. He was bound by the strongest obligations, those of honour and mercy, regard for the opinion of the Bench and of the Jury, to give the most co lourless representation of the case. Were Counsel allowed to plead for the defence, it would be their duty to struggle with the evidence; and if they could convince the Jury, they would endeavour to affect them. The consequence of this would be, that a different course from that now taken would be pursued by those who conducted the prosecution, and the sober tribunal of a Court of Justice would become an arena for the contention of two disputants, the stake for which they struggle being the life of a man. The Judge would also find it necessary to change his course, and in nine cases out of ten would become an advocate, to answer the Counsel for the defence. He doubted if the accused would profit by such a change, as all that could be said by a retained Advocate would not have the same weight with a Jury as the direction of a Judge now carried with them. Other reasons against the proposed change might be urged. He did not know that he had ever seen a Jury who had not one man of a very tender and scrupu lous conscience among them. Was it desirable that a practised and ingenious pleader should apply himself to the doubts of such a person ? Would justice be better administered if this were done ? All these things must be considered before he would consent to alter the law. He had one other argument to which he thourht it would be impossibl e f or t h e H on. G ent l eman to reply—f was this, that the change was not called for by the voice of the people. The Hon. Gentleman had (looted Black stone. He wound stop to inquire whether he had correctly re presented his meanings, but he thought he had not, and that the remarks of Mr. Justice Blackstone applied to the principle of the law, and not to the practice; but at all events the voice of the people seemed against Blackstone, and they petitioned for no change. One petition had that night been presented, but it was not single petitions usually ought to get any evil corrected. The people wished an alteration to be made with respect to the slaves in the West Indies. Was it by a single petition that they called for the change ? No ; and had they wished for the change now recommended, their table would have been loaded with petitions. The absence of these he considered a decisive proof that no change was desired. It might be wished for by dillettanti lawyers and philsophers, but the people did not require it. It was singular, th a t t h e cases brought forward as those in which the aid of Counsel wan most needed, were cases of High Treason, with regard to which the evil complained of was already done away. In eases where the probabilities of guilt or innocence were nearly balanced, the interference of Counsel was unnecessary, as then the rule of law applied, and the Jury were found to acquit. The Honourable Gentleman had referred to a case which had recently occupied much attention. It ,could not be denied that the prisoner had displayed great talent. He would have been fortunate in deed had he found a Counsel equally competent, but he would ask, could any appeal have been of avail. He knew - not then by what inversion of - reason it- could be contended that this was a case which proved the importance of allowing Coun sel to speak for the defence. He thought the English law good, but would not say that justice might not be equally well ad ministered under some other system. Some might be of opi nion that thirteen Jurors would be better than twelve, but he was not favourable to making alterations which were not proved to be necessary. But the lion. Gentleman might say, I pro pose nothing new, but merely that you shall transfer to criminal prosecutions that practice which is now upheld in another tri bunal. If the Hon. Gentleman would engage to go the lenkth of assimilating the practice of the Criminal Courts in every respect with civil proceedings he would go along with him.— But this he was sure he would not do. He would find in some cases that parties after being' engaged in a Chancery suit for ten or twenty years, were at last referred to anothe r t r ib una l, but the Hon. Gentleman would not therefore contend that 4 was desirable that an inquiry to ascertain the guilt or innocence of an accused individual should be protracted in like manner. If there were any real grievance to remedy, he should be as forward either in devising a remedy, or in joining others for that purpose as any Gentleman in that House. But this was a practice of long standing, which had only been discovered as a grievance within the space of the last year or two. Neither could it be said to be one in which the people took any share ; for the Hon. and Learned mover could only produce one peti tion on the subject, and that one was from a few gentlemen ac customed to sit as Jurors at the Old Bailey. For the reasons he had stated lie should oppose the motion, and especially be cause he thought the remedy proposed would introduce greater evils than those it was destined to remove, and would be detri mental to the administration of justice.—(Hear, hear!) Sir J. MACKINTOSH complimented the - Hon: and Learn ed Member who had just sat down on the ability he had evinced in the management of the defence lie had endeavoured to make for the existing forms of the administration of criminal justice. If the general wisdom and justice' of the criminal law had been the question, he should desire no better vindicator than the Hon. and Learned Gentleman; but this was not a question of general law, but of particular practice. He must say that he wished the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had carried his imV ginary dialogue with a foreigner a little farther than he had.— He had not dealt with this dialogue in the way that the ancient masters of the drama did, who made the characters they intro duced support their respective bona fide with justice and necessary energy ; but had rather treated it as a case b e t w i xt A and B, con ductt wherein it was always to be observed that Bweaem was only toro ly in duced to give an eas y a nd inglorious victory to A.—(A laugh.) He (Sir J. Mackintosh) must confess himself f ar b eneath the Hon. such and a Learned case; butl Gentlemane really yn should abilityldhave felt a t a l oss to explain the grounds of this anomaly in the law. It was cer tainly a maxim of British law, that a man charged with any crime should have the fullest means of defence, but how came it in this case, that a man, mistrusting his own ability to de fend himself, should not be allowed to call for other assistance ? The burthen of proof was certainly on the vide of those who undertook to vindicate this notorious deviation from the prin ciples of natural justice. That it was such a deviation, he ap pealed for proof to those codes of civilized nations, which re corded and deposited the moral feelings and judgments of the whole human race. He appealed to Scotland and to the United. States of America, in both of which cases a full and open de fence, not a mutilated defence connived at by the law, was al lowed. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had referred to ' the practice of the Court of Chancery, into which Court he begged leave to decline following him, as he did not see what analogy it could bear to the Trial by Jury. It was an extra. ordinary fact th a t C ounse l was a ll owed to prisoners in all cases, felony only excepted, yet the Hon. and Learned Member had travelled to the Court of Chancery, totally overlooking that which lay contiguous to the question under discussion—he meant the cases of treason and misdemeanor. Yet where could he the difference between the prisoner in the case of treason or misdemeanour, and that of the felon, excepting that in the two cases men of talent and education, capable of making some defence for themselves were on their trial, and in the other poor and ignorant individuals who possessed no means of defence within themselves. He should certainly say thus much for this part of the law to the inquisitive fo reigner —that the moderns were not answerable for it, nor was it any part of the ancient law. The origin of it, he should say,. was in the poverty of the persons charged with felony. That this was the fact was stated by Mr. Sergeant Halls, so long as 150 years ago, at the same time that he declared that disuse had given it the colour of law. But if his being a Whig Lawyer should beget suspicions, lie would quote another authority, which would not be held in the light of a dilletanti. He alluded to no less a person than Lord Chief Justice Jeffries, who, it would be adniitted, was no weak authority when found plead ing on the side of mercy and indulgence. His words to the Jury in summing up upon the trial of a Non-conformist, that it was a hard thing that when Counsel and witnesses upon oath were allowed to a prisoner under indictment for a two-penny trespass, the same indulgence was not allowed in a case of trea son. As an acute and learned man, which he was obliged to admit Judge Jeffries to have been, this as a legal opinion was valuable; for it was said by his biographer. that when not in toxicated, nor inflamed by disease, or infuriated by party spirit, no man better became the bench than this atrocious and dis graceful character. This opinion, delivered in that day, would, he hoped, relieve the Honourable and Learned Gentleman (Mr. North) from his error that the complaint now made was the offspring of some dilletanti lawyers and dilletanti philosophers of the present day. It was a tact, that formerly the witnesses for a prisoner were not sworn ; the consequence of which was, that they were not believed, which was a manifest hardship upon the prisoner. But this had since been done away with, as well as the refus a l of C ounse l i n cas es of Treason and other blots in our Criminal Law coeval with these, and upon every-reforma tion argument in favour of the old law, such as they had heard that night, were used. The Preamble of the Act of William and Mary, making an - alteration in the case -of Treason, said, that, " Whereas it is proper that persons charged with the of fence of Treason should have full and equalmeans of defence." Now if the alteration of the word Treason, t o F e l ony , wou ld fit this for the Preamble of -his Honourable and Learned Friend's Bill, that Act was not extorted by tle voice of the peo ple, and he believed the Hon. and Learned Gentleman opposite would not find a single Petition on the subject. He should be glad to hear what difference could be made out between the case of treason and the case of felony as regarded this ques tion. He joined his Hon. and Learned Friend (Mr. Q. Lamb) in deprecating the false sympathy which had been shewn on the subject of the late trial at Hertford—a sympathy in favour of one of the most execrable ruffians that ever disgraced society:— (Hear !)—With regard to the defence made on that occasion, he considered that had there been any doubt whatever in the case, this defence would have removed it. It was a most fatal defence, assuming a theatrical appearance, and affiarding to him (Sir J. Mackintosh) a proof that the mind of the man had early as sumed a theatrical character, to which he clung in his last mo ments, to the exclusion even of consideration of the danger of his situation, and which throughout life had imparted that desperately resolute and wickedly intrepid character to his mind which made him shrink from no act. With respect to the arguments of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman against the mo tion before the House, he must say that it was the firit time he had ever heard it maintained that discussion did not facilitate the investigation of truth. For his part he thought that a con tention which elicited the best abilities of Counsel on each side was the very best mode of enlightening the minds of a Juryi especially under the direction of a grave and authoritative mode rator. He did not distinguish the public from the prisoner in thi s question. He claimed the measure upon grounds of general jus tice. In a question of this kind one half of mankind was disabled by ignorance from giving an opinion, and the o th er half by pre judice and habit • for the members of th e p ro f ess i on must cer tainly be admitted to be tied down to a certain extent to exist ing forms and practice. It was for that very reason that he thought it the duty of every man, when he did distinguish a blot, to labour to xemove it. it was the payment of a debt which every man owed not only to his professsion, but to his country. (Hear, hear ! ) The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, he was most ready to admit with the Hon. and Learned Mover that this was not a light or trivial question. He was the more disposed to admit this, because he was of opinion that an alteration in the law of the nature proposed would be in the extretnest degree injurious; and which would not tend to elicit truth, nor benefit the pane' accused. He confessed, at the same time, that he had CO.Ole to this conclusion with great caution, from the same fee l 94 entertained by his Honourable and Learned Friend (Size..ec Mackintosh) relative to the force of professional habit. I n, had well considered that every part of the old law which undergone reformation had found advocates in its day. I 3 ,u r . with reference to the opinion of Judge Jeffries, he must say we , ' it was of no avail in this question, because it did not refer to state of the law such as it was now. The opinion of that gse?te_ upright, and Learned Judge, Foster, who had been called the Alagna Charta of the criminal law of this country, he eh" uriouse Very prefer upon this occasion. He stated that the argumente the side of allowing Counsel to prisoners for felony were veil plausible; but lie came to a different conclusion from those who advanced them. Nothing, he considered, could be more fair, candid, or cool, than the discussion in a Court of Justic e ' in a case of life and death. There was no one in that House who had not witnessed such a scene, and he asked whether any thing could be better Conducted ? The greatest order ad ree l ; larity prev a il e d ; th ere was no exc i tement, nor any thing who If could at all interfere with a candid and impartial inquiry., this then were th e case , oug h t t h ey not to pause before fu.',l assented to an innovation o f th e nature now deman d e d ? 1 n . all cases where life was involved, the Counsel for the prosece tion did hot go beyond a cool and naked statement of the cage ; if he departed from this line, it was well known th at the Jutlg e d interposed. Now if thi s iteration were made, they siru have the wh o l e thi ng c h ange d i nto a contest of Coueseli, with the passions of both sides heated and brought into rio• The case of a misdemeanour he thought made against the argu ment of his Hon. and Learned Friend who introduced in for that, from its nature, was one in which party feelings were gaged. The Judge was at present regarded as Counsel fur till prisoner. Make this alteration and he must become Counsel against the prisoner. But did the prisoner benefit by sue , 5 change ? On the contrary ; for it should be rememberee th e ' v the gg a speech to the prisoner was giving a reply to L prosecutor. Then as to the investigation of truth, he contende 4 that the proposed alteration would not a,sist the investigetio" of truth. Upon general grounds it was probably difficult 10 find an answer to the arguments of the Hon. and Learned Oen" tleman on the opposite side ; but this was a question of a pre e " tical tendency, and one which ought to be dealt with on or 3 fi deal grounds. The effect of the alteration, f or i nstance , elutu" be important in one respect— h e meant the e v ident tendency, it would have to the suppression of evid ence . Th e ca lli ng lo t ' neeses on the part of the defendant entitl e d th e p l a i n tiff o ,r, prosecutor t he par reply upon the whole case, and it was tail known at the Bar, and he had often felt it a most painful dot'''. that it was one of the chief difficulties of Counsel to determin e whether they would call witnesses or not. So much was the, reply on the wh o l e case d rea d e d , w h en a man had a power ful antagonist, that a vast deal of evidence upon the merits of the case wax frequently lost. Now what would he the effect of this in the event of Counsel being granted to prisoners? A geet t deal of matter tending to elucidate the question, would be 105 ' from an apprehension of the effect of the talents of an adverse Counsel. Again, it was well known that wealth was on the side of the prosecution, so that the elder g arid ell enera e l r weighty Counsel wo u ld b e a l ways engaged against t h e Pri soner. Thus the wh o l e wou ld b ecome a contest of w i t a nd talent with the wei g ht on th e s id e o f t h e prose cution.glea r 1 / He confessed that w h en thi s propos i t i on was first made by the Hon. Member for the C oun t y o f G a l way (Mr. R. M ar tin) two or three years ago, h e was capt i vate d b y t h e speciousness; o f it. His opinion against it no w mus t not ; t h erefore, be attr ib u t e d to . prejudice, but to m a t ure cons id erat i on, w hi ch had conv i n ced him that it would be injuriou s t o th e a d m i n i strat i on of justice.; injurious to the pri s on er , an d t h at it wou ld not assist, but re t a il" the investigation of truth.—(H ear !) Dr. LUSHINGTON was decidedly in favour o f a re f o rms , - tion in the law as it now stood. H e kn ew th ere was a gener a opinion that the accused would often m a ke a b e tt er case w ere he enabled to employ Coun se l. Th e J u d ge never cou ld be Counsel for the prisoner. At th e t r i a l o f P atc h h e per f ec tly remembered when the leading Coun se l f ore th e C rown h a d con cluded his speech, hearin g it sa id—" t h at is one of his hang" ing speeches." This did not mean t h at t h ere was any declamation in it, or a ny a pp ea l to t h e pass i ons. It s i t,sn ifieel that the case h a d b een circumstantially linked together, by dove-tailing the nic e d e t a il s o f 'i t i n suc h a manner, as l e d the con' elusion. step by st e p, i n an un d ev i at i ng line, to the fatal elusion. Yet s uc h was t h e s i tuat i on of the prisoner, that he was called on to m a k e hi s own d e f ence on the spur of the moment, to a sp eec h o f suc h cunning and power. It wt"' a task whi c h one pr i soner in a thousand would be found in competent to. H e very b e li eved that many prisoners were ly , convicted from the want of Counsel, and many acquitted (ree l , the same caus e . Wh at could be. More inconsistent than to al low Counsel to a prisoner on trial for an attempt to commit el; offence wherein the punishment was not capital, and refuse i 1 to him when charged with the actual commission, and when Cow Napoleon consequ ence o f a ver di ct would be death. In the "'", Napoleon it was provided that if the Counsel for the prosecution_ replied, the Counsel for the prisoner should have the last word. He belived the administration of criminal justice in this Coto' try was conducted on a most niggardly principle. Our JutWe were most miserably paid, and were not advanced to the honour of the Bench until it was too late for them to enjoy ' l * He hoped to see thi s sooner o r l ater a l tered. He hoped, je' deed, that the office of Chief Justice of the- Common plea a would be made worth the acceptance of his Hon. and Learned Friend.—(A laugh.)--It had been urged against the motion that no petition had been presented to the House complaining of the present custom. He could not bat be surprised at such an argument as this. No petition had been presented on the subject, because the persons who would benefit by the pro posed measure were about to be tried immediately. After eu logizing the speech of his Hon. and Learned Friend, the Merl' ber for linaresborough, the Hon. and Learned Member roll" eluded by declaring his intention to support the motion. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL opposed the motion. The- Report of the Committee appointed by the House to inquire into the Criminal Law had not recommended any alteratioet on this subject. No complaint of the present practice had been made by any of the writers on our Criminal Law; nor did he think that the proposed alteration could be defended on prln" ciple. It would reduce the trials for felony to mere contents between the advocators. According to the present practice, no Counsel for a prosecution was allowed to colour the case to the prieoner's disadvantage in his opening to the Jury. If he . were to agree to any alteration at all, it would be to equalize the situation of the Crown and the prisoner, by taking away '- the right o f C ounse l to spea k even for the prosecution. SVP' a points of law occurred, the prisoner was alwas allowed th e : aid of C ounse l . N o case of an unjust conviction had .been made out, or even charged ; and the objection to the practic! as now observed was fbunded only on theory. The case °' treason was distinguishable from all others, because in those cases it was possible that the whole weight of the Government . was against the prisoner, and th e w i se j ealousy of our laws h a d . provided against possibility. It was on the best consideration that he could give the subject that he had determined to op pose`the measure. The present practice he thought Was fa vourable to prisoners, and he therefore would not consent to-- disturb it. Mr. DENMAN supported the notion, and was suprised at' the opposition given to it by his Hon. and Learned Friend who had just sat down. He well remembered the ahle defence made by his Hon. and Learned Friend for a prisonex sum' years ago; a defence which he b e li eve d save d t h e pr i soner ' s life ; a life which he owed to the exertions of his Counsel. --- (Mr. Denman alluded, we believe, to the trial of Watson, 1- r, High Treason, in the year 1817.)—Ilis Honourable a!'" Learned Friend, therefore, in himself, furni s h e d a p r incipal' argument in support of the measure. He thought there wr., no sound distinction b e t ween t h e case of treason and that , of felony. The present practice was most inconvenient, because it. forced a prison er ' s counse l to con d uct the cross-examination of the witnesses in a way which assumed the existence of disputed facts, or was argumentative upon the facts actually in evidence. It had been said, too, that the case of treason was different, because the weight of the Crown Advocates was thrown against the prisoner. He did not believe that this was the reason for the distinction ; nor did he believe that th e f act upon w hi c h it was assumed existed; for he did not believe that the most ability was always to be found on the side of the Crowri He was most anxious, however, to bear his testimony, as a wit ness, to the necessity of the proposed measure. He offered that testimony as a Magistrate, often having to try prisoners in cases of felony, and in that character he declared that he should feel himself assisted and relieved by hearing Counsel for the pri soners in all such cases.—( Hear, hear !)—The experience of the present practice had b een con fid ent l y referred to ; but that o f the measure now proposed had never been tried. The argu ments against the measure were generally founded on common place assertions, consisting of appeals to the humanity of the Judges in favour of the prisoners, Just as if they were a body cor porate. In support of h is argument, the Hon. and Learned Mem ber referred to Elizabeth Canning's case. She accused persons of felony who could not defend themselves by Counsel, and convicted them. She was sfterwards herself tried for perjury, committed on that trial, and convicted, although she was de fended by Counsel. It was said, that in all cases the Judges were Counsel for the prisoners; but it was a libel upon them to assert this, for it was their duty to ascertain the facts of each case as dispassionately as possible without making themselves advocates one way or the other. He most cordially supported the motion. Mr. MARTIN (of Galway) supported the motion. Hs re-