The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-04-07 00:00:00

PARLIAMENTARY INTeLLthENCE.
HOUsE OF IA)RDB, TuzsmaT, Aram I.

Al EWAUE FROM THE COMMONS.
Si Jas. Wuhan, Ueneral Oaseoyae, and ethers. from the Carc-
inoma, brought up the Irish Four per Cent. Reduction Bill. and the
lid-Treatment of Cattle Bill.

—COLONIAL SLAVERY.
Lord GOSPORD presented a petition from Tandem's, in the
county of LunesW.k, peaytag for the abolition of @Way in the
West ladies, which am laid on the table.

RIGHTS OF SEPULTURE BILL.
Lord HOLLAND said, that he held in his hand • petition that
bad been entrusted to hien, and which he thought it his duty to
premed to their Lordships it related to a Bill that had come hum
itie other House, ef which at present he knew nothing; and he
was ouaciptainted with the Aims stated in the petition, so as to be
enabied to faun all *pinion of their accuracy. He should have
malted to have waited before he had presented this petition, until
be had ores into the facts that were alleged, and looked into the
movieiros of the Bill; but feadhlg it to be the intention of the
Noble Bad opposite to go Mite ehe Committee this day, with such
unusual beak, he bed anellitinetive left but in presenting it. He
begged their lordship N oisherstand, that in presenting the peti-
tion soder the areumetanom that he had stated, lie did not mean
so pledge himself to the anewtacy of the assertions contained in it.
He must any that it was other estrange proceeding that a Bill, the
object of which was to alley angry feelings, should be thus hurried
thstingh the House, and no time given to people to express their
opinions open it. There were some words in this ignition, had
these been more time given, that be should have proposed to comm.
The pl obit Lord then himself reed the petition, which complained
thee the Bill introduced new enactments more intolerant than the
present practice, the operation of which would tend to produce
collision between the clergy and the different communities, which
ought meet sedulously to be avoided. The petition also stated, that
to internryttion had been given to the butial of Catholics before the
appointment of the present Archbishop to the Diocese of Dublin.
1 hr Noble Lord, in coatutuation, mid that he had taken that us.
usual cowrie, became he did not wish their Lordships to imagine
that he enteraitied the opinions contained in the petition. He bad
ne eppoetteMtt of fanning soy opinion et pianist, and /hombre
had reed the Octangle* in the petition to stew that elmy mom net
his oddments, but those of the pennants.
The Eat? of LIVERPOOL did not rise to oppose the reception
of the petition but merely to state the causes that had led to the
introdwetion a the Bill. The other House of Parlimmet had hod
ite attention called to this subject early in the present Seance, le
comequesce of which a Bill had been introduced by a Headman
commend with the law department of that country which required
the measure. He wan not aware of any undue haste in P
rots RA, or any unusual count adopted with regard to irtc."l4!
stated yesterday that he was anxious that the Bill should be pre.
credal with as speedily as possible, and be then popeyed that it
should be committed to.dsy. With regard to the petition, there
were many allegationt contained in it founded in emir, which must
have arisen from a misunderstanding of the question altogether
-Earl DARNLEY nee, not to throw unnecaser delay epee a
measure that lie hoped would have beneficial effects ; but dub
Lordships uni4 know what a melancholy violence of party at
present woe existing, which he apprehended would not be saftemed
ny the constant recurrence dapplications from the Roman Cadre&
priests to the rectors of wisher for the interment of their So&
He would suggest, in order to obviate that inconvenience, that the
Catholic priest should give notice only to the Protestant minister;
and if the latter did not object in a certain time that It might be
considered he had no objection, and the funeral follow in come.
queer,. This would operate as a veto given to the Protestant
clergyman, and would, he apprehended, answer every purpose.
The Earl of CA RNARVON was sure that the object of the
Noble Earl was to tranquillize Ireland, and not to entrap their
Lutdships into the adoption of any hasty measure. He wished to
call the Noble Earl's attention to the case of a perish having no re.
sidmt minister. Such cases were not provided for by the BilL He
should wish, where there was no minister residing within forty
mho of the parish, that a notice stuck on the church door should
be sufficient.

The Earl of LIVERPOOL observed, that no legislative pro-
vision could operate favourably if there was not a good disposition
tetween the parties, and if there were, he was satisded that the
measure would answer ( 'Hear," from Lord Holland). The church-
yard was within the junliliction of the Rector or Vicar, subject to
the right of the parishioners to bury there. The Protestant cler-
gyman was bound to bury Roman Catholics, but the object of the
present Bill was to allow the Roman Catholic service to be per-
forated over those of that permeation. lie could not sutler the as-
persion thrown out in the petition respecting that excellent Prelate,
the Archbishop of Dublin. The fact was, he had nothing to do
with the transactions for which he was censured. He was at that
time residing at lasmington, in IVarwickshire, and returned to
town in a -few day*. after he heard of than, and did him ((Lard
11.!carpool) the boom of calling immediately after his ar-
csal, and that Right Rev. Prelate then diewed him all the papers
on the subject. With regard to the attendance of Italian Catholic
prints at funerals, it sometimes, but very rarely, occurred that
trey were suffered to be present : but the general practice was to
have the service performed in the house of the deceased, and some
consecrated earth thrown over it, and then the body was removed
to :he church-yard for interment. Discretion must be left sane-
where their Lordships could not legislate for every circumstance
that might ariseas7lultherefore It was thought best to leave it with
d.e Protestant an, and there was a provision in the Bill to I
protect the Cade) rap for if the clergy abused the discretion re-
posed in them, they must submit the grounds of their conduct to
the diocesan, and he was bound to submit such report to the Lord
Lieutenant. The preamble of the Bill was of itself asstrong as it
could be made, not for it to be a positive enactment. It stated that '
all classes of his Majesty's sulnects be allowed the same enjoy-
ment of the right of burial.
'rite Earl of LIMERICK said, that the Catholics' great desire
was to bury in ground that formerly belonged to catmints, and he
thought some arrangement might be made with the present pro-
pressure of such ground. or at least with many of them, for that
purpose.
Lord HOLLAND thought that the measure ought to undergo
deliberation, and time should be afforded to persons interested in
this question in Ireland, to address the House on the subject.
Lord KING proposal that a clause, compulsory on the clergy,
should exist instead of the present one, that made it optional with
thew es to the interment of Roman Catholics. Ile believed the
prognostication of a certain divine would be shortly verified, if this
13011 or some other measure did not change the practice, which was,
the church-yards must be left to the Catholta, if it should be
wished that the churches should be left with the Protestants.
Earl H ARROWItY slid that the Bill was not confined to
the Catholics only, but to Prominent Dissenters of all descriptions.
he had heard of an instance where a Presbyterian Clergyman had
asked to attend a funeral of one of that persuasion in his gown,
and had been refused ; and on inquiry he found that the request
could hot be granted. In the instance of the presort Bill, the ob-
ject of th-Lrgmlature was sodeined, that permission on the part of
the Clergy was synonimous with oltligstion on their part to permit
of the interment of Catholics. Ile should be sorry to see their
lordships going into discussion upon this question, as it would
cause delay ; and the Bill, he could assure them, was in die full
spirit of concludes); and by waiting he was convicted that opposi-
non to the Bill would be excited.
Lord HOLLAND said, that if the Bill was as stated by the
Noble Earl who had just sat down, it should have his cordial and
warm support.
'the Earls of LINTIIICI and DAR XLItY explained.
The petitions which came from certain Catholics in Ireland were
than bed en the Ode. _

Their Lordships then went into a Committee on the Roman
Catholic Sepulture Rill, which was reported without aunandinents,
and the report ordered to be received to-morrow.
SILK BILL.

The Sift Duties Reguistion Bill was read a third time and
paced.

SCOTCH MAGISTRATES.
Lord A. HAMILTON presented a petition tram an individual
of the name of Alexander 31•fbnald, complaining of the conduct
of the Magistrates of Inverness.
The LORI) ADVOt :ATE defended the conduct of those Ma-
gistrates, and stated that he knew then to be persons of honour anti
Integrity. He observed, that it was no light affair for the charac-
ters of public officers to be arraigned before that House, on the
complaints of individuals ; and he regretted that the Noble Lord
had not given him an opportunity of inquiring into the truth of the
statement contained in the petition before he presented it, as he had
no hesitation in saylig. that if the allegations were correct, the
Town Clerk had been guilty of mast illegal acts, but for hich the
Magistrates were not to blame.
Lord A. HAMILTON remaiked, that a similar complaint had
been lodged against those very Magistrates by himself last year;'
and the only amendment testified by then, was in the repetiuon of
their opprediive conduct.
The Loan ADVOCATE explained. Mr. KENNEDY said a few
words; and the petition was ordered to lie on the table.

•
ST. CATHERINE'S DOCK.
Mr. Alderman WOOD premwtod a petition from the owners of
houses at St. Bowlph's. praying to be heard by Counsel against
the St. Catherine's Dock Bill.—Laid on the table.
HIDES AND SKINS.
Sir F. BLAKE presented a petition from the tanners, &c. of Ber-
wick, against the duties on hides and skins.—Laid on the table.

REPEAL OF ASSES.SED TAXES.
Sir R. COLBORNE presented a petition front Ely, praying for
a repeal of the house and window Lut.
A sunder petition was presented by Mr. SYKES, front Kingston.
upon-II ull—Laid on the table.
SCOTCH AND IRISH VAGRANTS.
Mr. HASKETH mo►ed that there be laid before that House are.
turn of the amount paid cur the conveyance of Scotch and Irish
vagrants to their respective settletnents.—Ordered.
PRIVATE BREWING BILL.
I Mr. LITTLETON presented a petition from the common
brewers of , against the Private Brewing Bill.—Laid on
the table.
UNION OF PARISHES IN IRELAND.
Mr. BUTTERWORTH presented spetition from the Reverend
Junes Hamilton, of Rosen*, in the county of Tipperary, against
the union of pariahs in Ireland.
. . .

Mr. ROULBURN feared that his silence might be tnisinta-
preted into an acquiescence of the statements contained in the ped-'
Mon, for a great many of which he knew that there was no founua-
tion : he alluded more particularly to the charge against the Bishop
ofelogber (Lord Robert Ponsoa.by Tottenham), whom the ped-
don averred to have been guided by improper 1711:41VC14 in the eccle-
siastical prefernients in his diocese, when Bishop of Killaloe; but
every body who knew anything of the Rev. James Hamilton, of
Rosetta, knew that he was very much inclined to form hasty and
intemperate judgments.
Mr. C. H UICH I NSON made a few observations.

ear J. NEWPORT said, that the mischiefs connected with the
church establishment in Ireland arose principally from the union
of parishes, and the plurality of livings.
Alt. BUTTERWORTH suggested that a Royal Commission
should go to Ireland to inquire into the state of the church esta-
blishment.

The petition was then ordered to lie on the table.
Mr. GM:LIU:RN expressed a wish that the petition 'night not
be printed.

Mr. CALCRA FT said, that there was one important allegation
in the petition stated by the Honourable Member that had not
been contradicted ; it was an alleged abuse in the church admini-
stration of Ireland, and that was an administration so pregnant
with abuses that any allegation of that nature might easily be
believed. (Hear, and a laugh.) Of twelve hundred clergymen
who ought to be resident, eight hundred, he would go nearer the
mark by saying seven hundred, did not reside in the country.
This was, in itself, a great abuse. There were many considera-
tions which should entitle any complaint of this nature to particu-
lar attention. The inhabitants of many of the parishes in Ireland
was altogether Catholics ; there was not, in some of them, even •
Protestant competent to till the situation of clerk, nor a glebe
house nor church, yet Protestant clergymen drew very ample reve-
nues front them. 'nder such circumstances it was necessary, that
where clergymen had duty to perform they should discharge it. lie
did not say this in accusation of the Bishop whose conduct was in
Irian, but merely that the House might be put in possession of
prayer of the petition and the objects of it.
The petition was ordered to be printed.

gislature to make this offence a misdemeanor, ratbet than punish-
able, as at present, by tine. Such a change was one which they
at least would hesitate to adopt.
After a few weeds from Mr. Rl] MIOLD and Mr. OORDON, the'
petition was ordered to be printed.
The IA /RI) A D VOC A T E presented a petition front the attorneys
of Rerwiek-upon-Tweed, against the duty on qualification for
attorneys.
EDUCATION.
Mr. HUME presented a petition front the assistant school-
mastersof Great Britain, requiring some test of qualification far
persons who undertook the discharge of those duties. They corn-'
plain that many incompetent persons, ill-qualified for instruction, !
had imposed on the schoolmasters throughout the country. to their
iniury anti prejudice. He (Mr. H.) felt bound to present the pe-
tition, but at the same time -wished to express his total dissent'
from it, as, in his opinion, it would dessoy that fair compritioll
which ought to exist in this as in various other matters in this
country. lie told the petitioners that be dissented from them.
They were, however, persons,!in their walk of life, highly respect-
able ; and he therefore presented their petition, that the House
might be put in possession of their sentunents.--Oniered to be
printed.
TRADE WITH PRUSSIA.
Mr. PHILLIPS raid, that he had been instructed to put a qua-
tion to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, relative to the trade of this
country with Prussia. At present all foreign ships importing
goods into this country, were liable to a charge of 5 per cent more
on such goods than English vessels. Heunderstood that it was
proposed and arranged between the two countries, to equalize the
duties imposed on goods imported respectively into this country and
into Prussia. By this means the five per cent. additional duty
now imposed, as regarded the trade of this country with Prussia,
would cease. He was surprised, if such an arrangement had been
made, that an Order of Council had not been issued to that effect.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that he
could, he thought, give a satisfactory answer to the inquiry of the
Honourable Member. Such arrangement had been for some time
in contemplation • it yet awaited, however, the signature of his
Right lion. Friend to give It a solemn and complete ratification.
This was the raison that an Order in Council had not issued on
the subject.
- - - - • •

3lr. PEEL presented a petition from the notaries of Dumblane
against the duty on qualification of attorneys.
Mr. C. ELLIS moved for certain returns connected with the
',pi* trade.
COUNSEL IN CASES OF FELONY.

Mr. G. LAMB, previous to the motion which stood on the
paper that night. presented a petition which had been sent to him,
and signed by certain pemsegna, who had often officiated as jurors at
the Old Dailey. The petitioners complained that they had wit.
tweed many cues where it was deeply to be regretted that prisoners
bed not the benefit of Counsel in reply in capital cases. The pri.
stmem dieloselves, from the unrolls' and incompleteness of self-
pollution, natural to the situation in which they were placed, were
usable to make any &walla& defence themselves, and were there..
fore left in a manner undefended. After the petition was read and
ordered to be printed, the Hon. Member proceeded to state, that
he would have to apologise for introducing the present Bill, as •
similar one, on a forum occasion, had been introduced by his lion.
Friend, the Member for Galway (Mr. Martin), but be had under-
taken it not only with the consent, but at the request of his lion.
Friend. Indeed, he had another reason to apologize for the intro.
duction of it, for mending ata he did in the shoes of his Honourable
Friend, as his Honourable Friend, by the dexterity with which he
conducted bills through the House—sometime' inrarition to the
opinions of the majority of its Members, would pa be better
qualified than he was to carry this Billthrougli Parliament. (A laugh)
There was this difference in the Bill of his Hon. Friend and that
which he intended to introduce; namely, that in the former Bill it
was provided that Counsel should be assigned by the Court for pri-
soners in capital cases. Now it was the Intention of this Bill that
prisoners, in such cases, should be as free as those in cases of mis-
demeanour, to select their own CotumeL In bringing forward this
Bill lie was aware that he was running counter to the opinions of
the Attorney-General, and of the majority of that profession ef
which he had been formerly a Member. He would ask any ef theas,
Learned Gentlemen, however, if they ever attended ow wassiwai
person in Court at the trial of • prisoner in a case of fehmsy, if the
first comment on such • trial was not the injustice of withhold*,
the benefit and advantage of Counsel to speak for him? Itched the
opinion of the most eminent authorities, inclusive of that of Mr.
Justice Blackstone, in support of the principle of the Bill, and he
had moreover the practice in our Courts at the more ancient period
of our Constitution. 3lr. Justice Blackstone had very properly said
that he was at a Inas to know by what right, or by force of what
reason, counsel were denied to perilous in capital cases, whilst they
were allowed them in cases even of petty trespass. If, in civil suits,
counsel were permitted to plead, how much stronger was the reason
for permitting them to plead In cases affecting the lives of part
inasmuch as life wan more valuable, and to Le more highly
than any species of property ? Referring to the time of Edward I. it
would be found that not only the principle but the practice of the
Constitution was in support of the Bill he now asked leave to intro.
duet. The lion. Gent. then went into a legal argument, with a view
of showing that such was the practice of law in the reign of Edward I.
and was consistent with the earliest principles of the Constitution.
The reason adopted by Lord Coke, and repeated by hoed Notting.
ham, was, that the evidence against a criminal should he so clear,
that it should be out of the power of counsel to controvert it. There
was no other paid reason easaigned for the non-employment of
counsel in criminal cases. Lord Nottingham further said, that the
facts ought to be so evident that no counsel should be enabled to ,
answer ; but that was no reason why counsel should not be allowed
to reply, because it would be iatisfaetory to the prisoner and hie
friends, and could not, in cues of evidence so strong as those laid
down by Lord Coke, shake them in any degree, or prevent justice
being done. Coke the regicide put this point still stronger, and
said, that the evidence against a telon ought to be so clear and
plain, and the principles on which he was convicted so evident,
that the mouths both of hearers and jurors should be stopped. In
the second place, it hail been said by Coke that there was a great
a
dvantage in felons being allowed counsel, in order that they might
see that nothing was urged against trbefll improperly, or not In ac-
cordance with strict right; and that if they had no counsel foe thee
so important was the principle that be had laid down 01111.
leTsd=in English law, that it had decided than the Cant is that
ease should be of Counsel for the prisoner. But what Lord Coke
said was erroneous. The Court could not be of counsel for the
sour, and the practice was not so In every cause that came
it. M'hitelock, who bad wished that no lawyer should sit in Par.
liament, had said, " 1 confess that I cannot answer the question
upon any sound principle, why • man on being tried for a tres.
pia of tiel. value should be allowed a counsel to plead his cause
but the man must have no lawyer for that purpose whose life mad
prosperity are at stake." With regard to the Court being of
Counsel tor the prisoner, it led to inconveniencies both ways ; fee
it might bear too strongly in favour of a prisoner, or not take a
sufficiently active part in his favour • and the exertions of a
Counsel under the guidance of the Bench could never run into
either of these extremes. In the one case he would be corrected by
the Judge if he &hewed excessive and undue zeal ; and fur the sake
of his own character he would never shew professional lukewarm.
nese. There was an instance of a Judge in a case of child murder
not suffering the sex of the child to be ascertained, and the pri.
toner was acquitted, because it had been omitted to be asked during
the trial whether the child was male or female. In another instance
a Judge asked a question, which the prisoner thought was un.
favourable to hint, and he replied, " Alt! my Lord, you would
never have asked that question if you had been really my counseL"
But it had been said that the Judge would prevent any thing from
being done that was contrary
.to law, and that was all the advantage
that aprisoner could look for in an advocate. But it should be recol-
lected, that a Judge could not out of Court receive any communica-
tion from a prisoner, which was most important for the accused,
and particularly with reference to his cross-examination. lie would
allow that a discreet and candid Judge would do much to serve a
primmer, and might fairly lead the minds of a Jury to the fair side
of the accused's case, and really wish to give every facility to his
deliverance; but how often were there cases virtually in point like
that of Udall, in the reign of Elizabeth, who said that he sat as a
Judge and not as an Advocate, when lie was asked advice by a
felon. Sir John Perrou's conduct, in the same reign, showed the
danger to which criminals were exposed by this practice; who, on
being asked by a prisoner how many of the Juty he might chal-
lenge, said that he sat as a Judge and nut as an Advocate. In ad-
dition to the instances that he bad adduced, which chewed that the
Court was 110 t in all casts counsel for the prisoner, it should be re.
collected that such men as Lord Chief Justice Jeffries and Judge
Page had sat upon the Beach. lie hail hitherto only con-
fined himself to what had been in defence of the prat.
Mee. His lionourable.and Loured Friends said, what practical
evil could result from the continuance of the s)stem which
had been so long adopted? Ile thought that lie had partly,
at least, alluded to the inconvenience that existed in consequence of
that system, and sheered that it really was not ideal ; but he con-
ceived that it was not enough bar the criminal iustiee of the
counny to be carried on fairly ; it ought to appear in the eyes of
the people be fairly and justly conducted. It might Weill as if
he were throwing site slur on the criminal justice of the king-
dom ; but he could assure the House that was not his motive,
but it was nuerely to point out the evils of the systemthat he had
taken the liberty of bringing the question before the louse. What
was the reason that pesetas were allowed to be defended by ('ohm.
gel? It was, thut they should 00t depend on their own abilities,
but that they should avail theineelves of the learning of an Advo-
cate. Lord Levan, on being called upon toe his defence, staid.--" It
is impossible for me to maks any defence, if I am not allowed an
Advocate, by raison of my infi 'esi. I cannot see, I cannot
hear; I am so weak, that I can scarcely walk; I was up at tour
o'clock in the morning, and if I am not allowed • Counsel to plead
for no you may condemn ate at once." In cases of insanity the
employment of Counsel was of vital importance to a prisoner.
Ile did not mean those cases of positive insanity which were evi.
dent; but it was important in those doubtful cases where it was
probably so much concealed as to require all the ingenuity of
a Counsel to elicit its existence. Piers Williams, in the case of
tile unfortunate Earl of Wilton, hoc said, that he was not in.
sane enough to be under the protection of the law, and at the
same time not sane enough to do himself service. The ruffian
who lately was executed in the county of Herta had been
extolled by the stupid admiration that had been thrown around
him, in consequence of the address he made at the conclu.
aloes of his trial. Ile would ask any person if they did not
believe that that criminal was buoyed up with the idea that the
silly tirade he pronounced would set him up in the eyes of the
world, ' would

Pope that preceded the one so well known and so often quoted, I
found an application in these circumstances—
" Hungry Judges soon the sentence sign,
" And wretches hang, that Jurymen may dine."
He did not say that the speech of an eloquent counsel would alter ,
the verdict of a jury, but it would make that verdict more sat s.factory in many instances. In ones of circumstantial evidence in
particular, there was always • chance of escape on the part of a
prisoner, and a counsel for a prosecution would not pros those cir.
cumstances so closely when the prisoner was without a counsel to
p'.ead fur him, and it was most important tor the criminal in these
' cases to have a counsel to make a speech for him. Much might be
' said as to stirring up the passions of the jury ; but *as that forted
to die case in misdemeanors ? And same of than did as much '
! to rds blasting the hopes of those accused of these as felonies
' d• and
.yet counsel have that proper. restraint over themselves,
th t no inconvenience arose from their being allowed to make
a hes for persons charged with misdemeanors. As he couMseesel
n evil in this measure, and saw the greatest benefits likely to arise
. from it, he would move that leave be given to bring in a Bill to
allow counsel to persons tried for felony, in the same manner se
they were allowed to persons accused of misdemeanors.
Mr. NORTH rose and said, that the very. ingenious arguments
of the lion. Member who proposed the motion had not produced '
any thing like conviction to his mind. He had always believed
that the administration of justice in this country was the admi-
ration of the world ; and if he had been called upon be an
enlightened foreigner to point out any department of our
code of justice, be should have selected this very department,
about which the Honourable Member had been complaining.'
Ile (Mr. North) should have recommended the inquirer to ob.'
serve the anxious care and caution with which every species of
evidence was received, in order that nothing improper might go to
the jury-box to the prisoner's prejudice, and, above all, he
should tell the inquirer that the Bench, ilium time to time, continued
to rebuke the seventy of justice. lie should have told him that
the prisoner was entitled to have counsel in all matters of law,
and by long usage the prisoner was entitled to the benefit of
counsel to examine and cross-examine witnesses, but that the
Judge was in effect the prisoner's counsel, that be was to take
care that no observation was made to prejudice the prisoner's
case, that no improper evidence was to be received, that the
Judge took down all that passed, to treasure it up for observe
tion, and that when all had been done, the Judea was further
bound to tell the Jury, if they entertained any doubt they mast
give the benefit of it to the pneoner. He should further tell the
inquirer that there was another role in British jurisprudent.,
that the verdict of the jury must be unanimous. The Honour.
able Member thought that there was something more ought to be
granted to the prisoner, and that something was a speech front
the counsel to the jury. He begged leave to ask whether the
Hon. Member had considered die effects likely to result thin:
such a measure? The counsel for the prosecution felt himself
bound to state the naked facts of the case; he was bound to do
so by an obligation of honour—he was bound by an obligation of
mercy, by the respect he entertained for the Bench, by the regard
be had for his brother Barristers, and having thus confined himself
to the most cold and colourless detail of facts, it was contended that
this simple statement should be met by a speech of another Conn.
sel, whose duty it would be to struggle with the evidence, to address
his arguments to the minds of the Jury. and to strain every point
to convince them of the prisoner's innocence. What would be the
consequence of this mode of procedure ? It would not be ulti.
mately in the prisoner's favour • but the contrary would be the re-
sult. If a Counsel were to be called on one side to exercise all his in.
genuity, it was too much to suppose that he would not be replied to
with equal ardour on the other. It was not to be supposed that where
two men were engaged in opposition to each other, that one
would confine himself to the most simple And uncoloured statement,
whilst the other exercised all his ingenuity and skill to carry • case
in favour of his client. It was not in human nature to act thus.
And what would be the consequence 1 That instead of the dig-
nified appearance which a Court of Justice preserved, it would
become an arena, and the stake about which of the parties wew
to dispute was the lite of • man. (Hear.) But there was a
further consequence, and that was, the vigilance of the Judge
would net have to be called into question so much as formerly:
and if the Judge found that what he used to do had devolved
upon another, it might be injurious to the prisoner. There was
no doubt but the advocate would be anxious to do justice to the
full extent of his power ; but what he said would not have the
weight which the sante sentiments would have if corning from
the /tench; for be the sentiments what they might, they still
were those of a retained advocate. But this was not all, foe
there was another result, and that was the following. In nine
cases out of ten, a Judge would feel himself called upqn to be.
come the prisoner's advocate. He would feel himself tasked to
remove the force of the arguments which had been addressed to
the Jury by the prisoner's Counsel. As it was not in the nature of
man to argue strongly without being warm, the prisoner might be
prejudiced in the ntinds of the Jury from the Judge's remarks to
remove the impression of the speech delivered by the prison.
er's Counsel. 'Diu' it would appear, that the proposed thcr.
ation would not bring with it all the advantages which lad'
been anticipated. There were, perhaps, other objections still
stronger. He had already alluded to that part of the Criminal
Law which required unanimity in the Jury. Ile was not called
up.on. to defend that ; he should argue it as though it was • fixed
principle of law. As he had before remarked, the Judge's duty
required. him to direct the Jury to give the prisoner the benefit
of a doubt if any existed in their minds. Ile (31r. North) thought
he never saw a Jury in which there was not some one of stronger
' feelings, and a more scrupulous conscience than the rest, or
' one of weaker mind. It would be much better that the one
with • feeble understanding should be left with the
compare other jury
men, to notes with them, than that he should
be acted upon by die speech of CounseL There was an-
other argument of still greater moment, on which the Ho.
nourable Member who had proposed the motion had been en-
tirely silent. It was this, that the alteration was not called for
by the voice of the people. The lion. Member had quoted
the authority of Mr. Justice Blackstone. He (Mr. N.) did not
think the sentence which had been quoted was to be taken Is the
sense which had teen represented. (Hear.) But even uutr=
as that the passage of Blackstone w of the tenor and import
been stated, it still did not prove that it was the wish of the park
of England that such a scheme was agreeable to them. The work
bad been sixty years in circulation ; it had not been confined to the
shelves of the lawyers, but had been in the hands of gentlemen, awe
gymen, merchants, and others, all of whom had an opportunity of
examining it, and many did examine it, but never discovered an
anxious wish on the part of that great lawyer for prisoners to enjoy
the privilege of having • speech made for them by counsel. The pro.
posed measure had not the sanction of the people of England; and
he contended that it was uncalled foe. He begged the Hon. Member's
pardon, he had brought forward a petition, one solitary petition, is
favour of his plan. But were the people of England represented
by a single petition ? The House recollected how many petitions
had been presented on the subject of West Indian slavery. If the
proposed scheme had been sanctioned by the nation, instead of one
solitary petition the table would have been loaded with petitiaos.
If the slightest alteration in the criminal law had been wished, it
would have been signified in numerous ways. The silence of the
people on the subject was the greatest proof that it was not coo.
sidered necesary. It was not enough that • few dilettanti lawyer
and a few dilettanti philosophers, complaining of the abuse of
a law, that theretore it ought to be altered. If any grievance
really existed he should be as ready AS any man to ac-
cede to an improvement of it ; but until it was .hewn that
an abuse existed he could not agree to the alteration. He
would just say nue word upon the cases to which the Hon.
Member had alluded. It was somewhat remarkable that these
cases were principally impeachments for high treason, and not a
single case of capital felony had been adduced in which the coin-
plaints could be fairly made. It was said that there might be
cases in which the balance might be so perfect that the Jury would'
find it difficult to make up their minds on what side the prepon-
derance lay, and the case of Patch was instanced as an illus.
tmtion. It was certainly true that there were many cases which
puzzled the most acute understanding to determine ; but in such
cases the law threw over the prisoner a shield more powetful
than the ingenuity of counsel, for where there existed a reasonable
doubt of the guilt of the prisoner an acquittal was the consequence.
In the other ease to which the Honourable Member had refer.
red, the case of Thurtell, counsel would have been of no use
It was fresh in the recollection of the !louse how the prisoner had
acquitted himself at the trial, the talent which lie had displayed,
and the effect which that speech had produced. The assistance of
counsel would have been of no advantage to the unfortunate man.
On the general inexpediency of the measure he had but a few re-!
marks to offer. The fact was, that the code of criminal justice was
admirable as a system—as a real and positive institution. If that
system were placid before hint in the closet, and if he were required
to say whether it was not capable of improvement, he was not pre-
pared to answer that it was the best mode of administering justice.
But this hypothetical immovement fonned no ground for changing
an institution which had existed so long, and which had acconnuo.
dated itself to the habits and the feelings of the people. If the
Hon. Gentleman went the long length of his argument, lie (Mr.
North) would willingly go along with him, and meet him on the
' plea of assimilating the administration of criminal justice with
that which dealt with the civil rights. If the Honourable Mem-
ber consented to this assimilation, and that the trial of a prisoner
should, like the suits in the Court of Chancery, depend for
fifteen or twenty years; and that after a decision there, they
should be transplanted to a higher Court, or perhaps be sent to
a Jury, in order to determine a matter of fist; there could be
but small compensation for the privileges which would thereby
be conferred on a prisoner. There was a very obvious difference
between a civil case, which reqiured a long and painful limeades-
tion, and a criminal prosecution, which was simple, and addressed
itself immediately to the understanding. lie again repeated, that
if any legal grievance were proved to exist, he should be as for.
ward as any Member in that House to propose a remedy for that
grievance. But as the grievance had only been found out a year
ago-111 only one petition hail been presented, which could be said
to represent the sentiments of the people, and as the remedy which
bad been proposed tended to introduce groat evils, both to the in.
terests of the prisoner, and to those of the public, he would give it
his decided opposition. (Hear. hear.)
Sir J. MACKINTOSH began by observing that the Ilis.
nouraSle and Learned Gent. alto had preceded him, had taken a
wide and discursive range in his arguments motion the Bill.
The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had even gone into the pro.
nee of Chancery in illustration of his view of the question. aVith
the detects or excellencies of that system, the present question had
no connection. In all criminal cases but felony, counsel were by

aid of such abilities as he might be able to procure when he rot
gnat his own were unequal to tine task, and if the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman had undertaken to defend the practice, he would tine
that the foreigner would have thrown upon him a burden of proof
which it would be difficult to remove. 11 he (Sir J. 31.) were to
argue the subject, he would not attempt to vindicate, but to es-
tenuate the law. lie would represent that the prohibition was
neither an invention of modem nines nor a part of the accient and
venerable fabric of the law. Ile would State that the spirit of that
code was not tainted by that abuse. He would say what was said
by Sir John Halls, the Solicitor-General of William 111.,
that he believed the practice had originated in the poverty of the
parties wooed. until the disuse of counsel, at last, put on the co-
lour of law. But if this authority was not held to be sufficient,
if Sir John Halls were treated as a weak nolicitoe-General, he
would fortify it with the authority of a Chief Justice, who certainly
could not be accused of possessing the vices of a dilrtfareti lawye
or philosopher t he alluded to Lord Chief Justice Jeffries. Gaoler
hear.) The Hon. and Learned Gentleman would not mu him,
down es one who was vitiated with false philanthropy. pet, on
the trial of Rosier, the nonconformist. Jeffries confessed that it
was a hard case that a prisoner on trial for felony or creation should
be refused the privileges enjoyed by those who were tried for mis-
demeanor. The privileges to which Jefferies alluded were those
of employing counsel and having mummies sworn for the defence,
both of which, by the practiceof the Courts, were then denied ; and
surely he was high authority, where he argued far indulgence to
Owners. (Hear, hear.) It was admitted -by his personal enemies,
that he possessed a very superior undemanding, which, when be
was not intoxicated, nor suffering bum the acuteness of his bodily
diseases, nor inflamed by the violence of his political reefing:,
enabled him so to discharge his judicial duty, that it was confessed,
even by those who most disliked him, that no person, infamous and
abandoned as he was, better became the heneh. (Hear.) The ept.
thets and description were not his (Sir J. M.'s). Nun 01 (la hie Krieg.
They were old Roger North's, who well understood the character
be was pourtraying. Jeffries was a pecan not disposed unduly to
favour the seem ( 'n a trial for high treason he was nut apt Da
sprinkle the prisoner with rose-water. But even he bad discovered
the grievance which the lion. and Learned Gentleman (Mr. North i
had that evening represented as the discovery of a few dikttaied
lawyers and philosophers ; and Jeffries, whatever other faults he
might have—however be might at other sessont be disinclined to
listen to the elaims of humanity, had joined, while discharging Ins
judicial duty on the bench, in reprobating a practice by which the
prisoner was subjected to so severe a grievance. When he (Sir J.
Mackintosh) had occasion to advert to the state of the criminal
law he had never concurred in any penegyri con the penal law,
though he might have praised the present crone of criminal pro-
emdings. Whatever excellence that course might new poetess, it
should be borne in mind that it was not always es at present.
Though, in its origin, it surpassed the liberality of all contampo-
✓ary codes, it had many stains which bad been gradually removed
by Parliament ; and on each of those occasions arguments as apt.
sous as those used by the Hoc. and Learned Gentleman aught
have been, and actually were, opposed to the removal. .I.Oemerly„
witnesses for the defence, in eases of felony, could not be sworn,
and, consequently, were not liable to punishment for perjury. Tore
were therefore not believed, because n was manifestly absurd to re-
ly on testimony which was giver under such circumstances as slag-
used the witnesses from all responsibility. It was, besides, •
mockery to say that the prisoner should be allowed witnesses at all,
when he was furnished with no compulsory process to compel their
attendance in Court. There was now scarcely any great blot re-
maining but that single one, which his lion. k riend ( air.O.Lanib)
had attacked in his very ingenious, temperate, and candid sperm
that evening. It was almost wonderful, and he would say, miracu-
lous, that so little remained to be amended ; but that consideration
afforded no argument why that little should be left untouched.
Formerly juries were punishable by writs of attaint if they found
false verdicts against the King, but not if they fount false verdicts
against the prisoner. Would the Hon. and Learned Geotlentaa
(Mr. North) contend that that practice, now happily abolished,
coeval with the refusal of counsel, gave any sanctity to the re.
mining judicial institutions of the country P When, in lfeel,
the full means of defence were granted to prisoners charge.; with
treason, he (Sir J. Mackintosh) would appeal to the House whin
thee every material objection made that evening by the Hen. and
Learned Gentleman was not to be found in the rude outlive of the
imperfect reports of- those days ? lie (Sir J. Mackintosh)
would refer to the words of the preamble of the Act for re-
soaring the privilege of counsel to persons triel for higli
treason. " hereas It is just and reasonable that persons tried
for high treason should have a full and sufficient defence.' By
this test he would try the arguments of the Honouraola and
Learned Gentlemen. If the same preamble were affixed to tile
Bill for allowing Counsel in cases of felony, would it not be appro.
miate ? Was there not as good a reason as in Walt for treason?
Neither was that measure extorted by the voice of the people.
Though the Bill was warmly agitated during lire or six succes-
sive sessions, yet no petition was presented in its favour from
Berwick to the Land's-end. What in principle was the diffrreace
between treason and felony ? It was true, that it was necessary to
deal with the former with more caution, on account of the power of
the accuser (lieu, hear.) But that was only a question of degrtv.
The argument of the on and Learned Gentleman (Mr.
North) was, that the allowance of Counsel would be injurious
altogether ; but if it would be injutious in cases of felony,
why was it not in easel of high treason ? There was even
a greater need foe Counsel generally in cases of felony. In
dints past, and generally now, persons accused of high treason
were men of some education and ability, capable of making some
defence fur themselves. But those who were charged with felony
were for the most part, of all others, the leset capable of seif.de.
fence, and the most certain to expose themselves to ruin and
destruction by the attempt. His honourable Friend (Mr. G.
Lamb) had argued the case of the late trial In Hertfordshire,
and by way of parenthesis, he (Sir James Mackintosh) would
state his entire coocurrence in the censures of his Honourable
Friend as to the attempts to excite sympathy towards the
atrocious criminal coavicted of that perfidious and berLanius
inurdes. No application of pity or benevolence could have
been more wretchedly misplaced than towards that most ex.
arable of all the ruffians that had disgraced human nature. His
Honourable Friend (Mr. G. Lamb) had not quoted the case to
shew that the criudual had suffered by the denial of counsel. But
if any doubt had existed as to the advisableness of altering the
practice, that very defence alone should have removed it ; for ne-
ver bad one been delivered so hollow, SO theatrical, so strongly pose
seining the appearance of being the effort of a mere rhetorician,
speaking in a cause in which he was not personally concerned, and
calculated only to produce a false effect. It was a striking part
of the theatrical character the man's mind had assumed, and
which governed him to the last so powerfully as to have
overcome the common solicitude of mankind for hfe and
character. The object of the Bill was to make something like
a balance of the means of defence between the prisoner and
the prosecutor, and to render the question of the prisoner's guilt as
little dependent as possible on the accidental superiority or inte-
riority of the talents of individuals. In civil cases the parties gar-
rally obtained as near an approximation to that balance as human
affairs would admit. IVhen felons were conipclled to make their
own defence, their chance of escape depended in great measure 05
the degree of talent they happened to losses. An innocent but stu-
pid man might be convicted, while a guilty man of talent escaped.
The House had lately seen the mere prospect of his dying game had
supported, under a burden of remorse which would, perhaps, other-
wise have weighed him down, a man of that desperately wicked
cast of mind, which induced him to shrink from no act, however
criminal or dangerous. To return, bowmen to the Act passed in
the reign of King aVilliam, fur allowing counsel in cases of high
treason, the principles of that measure were applicable to cases of
felony. Ifin general the allowance of counsel would be injurious
to the prisoner, it must be so at present in cases of treason. So
necessary and inevitable was that consequence, that he (Sir James
Mackintosh) could nut bee how the lloeourable and Learned Gen-
tlemen (Mr. North) could avoid the dilenina of condemning the
present practice, either in cases of high treason or felony. The
Honourable and Learned Gantleman had contended, that it counsel
were allowed to address the jury, they would deviate from that
calm and neutral character in which they now appeared, and, be-
coming inflamed with die heat of dispute, the ardour of rivalsbip,
and the moapect of success, the Court would be turned into an
arena of contending champions, in which the prize of victory was
the life of the prisoner. Supposing that some effect of this
kind was produced. This was the first time he (Sir J. M.) had
beard that a contest of talent was not the best mode of arriving at
the truth. Surely it could not be contendtel that though fat a mo-
ment it might dazzle and confound, it inuet not terminate by in-
forming the jury, especially when they sat under the guidance of •
grave and learned moderator. lie was not so fanatical as to assert
that truth in all cases would instantly prevail. It was also argunl
that the allowance of counsel would tend to lull the vigilance with
which the Judge watched over the progress of the test ; but he
was of opinion, on the contrary, that the contest of the counsel
would arouse the Judge's attention, and call forth all the vigour of
his understanding. It was impomibie that the arguments of the
counsel should fail to make an impression on his mind before he
addressed the jury. Why in all other oasts were counsel heard,
but to assist anti enlighten the mind of tae Judge ? And would the
hcasinessuofoltilti'eeranc.dwidea.tlL, dacepkrniso.ewtiltdgmte Judtgeo
boefiinh:tionaiiastisat;
ahiliCe"Szliii.n.
As tithe objection that the Judge would sat engaged in contests with
the prisoner's counsel, he expected no such comequance. It would
then become theJudge'stluty impartially to repress the faults of the
counsel on both aide.. The objection that the Bill would favour
the escape of the guilty men, could be applied with more fore: to
cases of high treason and political minkinear.ors, in which the
feelings of mankind were more generally interested. In conclu-
sinn, the ilon. and Learned Gentleman again complimented his
lion. Friend (Mr. Lamb), and remarked that of all kinds of re-
formation, the most difficult and thankless was legal reformation
one halt of mankind were disqualified from judging on the subject
by habit, acid the other by ignorance ; bu: when it could be elEeted,
it was the payment of a debt which a ruin owed not only to his
limit:ft:eon, but to his country. (l'heina.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he agreed perfectly with
his lion. and beamed Friend, .hat this was no light or trivial ques-
tion, but a pave and important consideration in the administration
of criminal Justus. In his opinion die alteration proposed would be
in an extreme degree injurious; it would not tend to elucidate die
truth or be productive of advantage to the parties for whore benetit
it was professed to be designed. As he was apprehensive that his
proteseional habits might have misled his judgment, he had taken
some pains to consider every part of the subject. Formerly the
law as to the trial of felons was in a very different state. Pervi-
ously to the rein of Queen Anne the on-- • could - call
defence,