Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-07-30 00:00:00

Thus, society is in some measure punished

for its own crime, although the punishment may
not be in due proportion to the offence. Yet it
is a punishment which, if we were rational,
might be averted. How, with our present mode
of conducting many of our trades, can it be other-
wise ; when the trader is constantly endea-
vouring to cut his neighbour's throat by holding
out the bait to the customer, of supplying him
with his wares for less than the actual cost of
production? Competition is truly said to be
the very soul of trade, and as enemies to mono-
polies of all kinds, that sentiment has our
cordial concurrence; but, then, like everything
else, it ought to have its limit : true, that limit
may be somewhat difficult to define, but when
we find it has reached a point which has the
effect of grinding the poor to the dust,—of
making those who would be honest, rogues,—
and those profligate who would be virtuous,—
of filling our goals and our workhouses—of
bringing into the world a pauper, imbecile, and
wretched population, then no longer designate
such a system competition. It is a foul ex-
cressence which has grown out of the fair
form of legitimate trade. A wen on the necks
of many of our people of business, of which
they have need to feel alarmed, for if its pro-
portions increase as they have done for some
time past, it will absorb every particle of
truth or manly virtue in the system, and
leave the trader a rotten sepulchre—a mockery,
a delusion, and a snare—as regards honour or
trade morality. It will be borne in mind that
we speak thus only of those who push their
proceedings in regard to cheapnes so far as to
produce the results we have from time to time
pointed out ; and our remarks must not be held
as applying to that class of traders amongst
whom legitimate competition is alike honourable
to themselves and beneficial to the public at
large ; but no such results accrue—none such
can accrue—from that unholy rage for cheapness
—the pandering to which has produced so much
of the misery, ruin, and degradation we witness
around us. We may return to this question at
an early day.

OUR readers are aware that another criminal
trial has just taken place, which has created a
vast amount of public interest. We refer to the
case of THOMAS FULLER BACON, who was ac-
quitted at the Old Bailey, in London, of murder-
ing his children, but has now been convicted and
sentenced to death for poisoning his mother.
What renders the matter more than usually
attractive is the fact of its coming so soon after

the memorable trial of MADELINE Small, at
Edinburgh, charged with the awful offence of
poisoning her lover, at Glasgow. It gives us an
opportunity of comparing the criminal procedure
of this country with that which is prevalent in
Scotland.

The first thing in connection with these trials
which suggests itself to the mind, is the order in
which counsel for the prosecution and the defence
address the court and jury. Little more than
twenty years ago the counsel for a prisoner
charged with felony had not the right to address
the court on behalf of his client—he could only
examine and cross-eNamine the witnesses (or and

against the prosecution, whilst counsel for the
crown bad the right of two speeches, one on open-
ing the case and the other in reviewing the

defence put forward. The evils arising from
such a system became apparent and w ere deeply

felt. Mr. EWART'S Prisoners' Counsel Bill was

proposed, and after considerable opposition be-

came the law of the land. By this enactment,

the prisoner through his advocate has the right
to sift the evidence for the prosecution, and to
state at length the line of defence which he pur-
poses to adopt. This was a reasonable and just

proposal. It was but fair that a man whose life
was trembling in the balance should have every

chance of proving his innocence, and the wonder
is that a measure so frought with equity should
have been so long delayed, and when brought
forward, that any parties should have opposed
its becoming law. The beneficial results of Mr.
EWART'S Bill have demonstrated that he took a
proper view of the case when he asked the
Commons of England to grant to a prisoner's
counsel the privileges he now enjoys. But
although the Bill in question may have effected
much good, it would have been much more
efficacious had not the House of Lords, with its
usual reluctance to reform, stripped the Bill

of one-half of it intended objects, and which, to
this day, still continue in force, entailing, as it

often does, serious and irreparable injury upon
the accused. Mr. EWART'S Bill, as amended by
the Lords, gave to the Crown the right of
replying to any evidence, other than as to
character, the prisoner might call to rebut
the charge made against him ; and as the counsel
for the defence is compelled to speak before
calling his witnesses, he must either forego the
advantage to be derived from their testimony, or
impair its effect by giving t.) his legal adversary
the right to the last word. It is easy to conjec-
ture the effects of such a system. In many
instances, an able and popular counsel keeps
back important testimony, in the hope that
his fervid appeal will carry away the feelings of
the jury. Failing that, an irreparable injustice
is inflicted upon the helpless prisoner, and he is
convicted and punished for an offence, of which
the jury might have deemed him guiltless, had
they heard all the testimony.
Now, it is a principle of British law, that, cost
what time, trouble. or expense it may, it is the
duty of all concerned, in the administration of
justice, to give to the accused every possible
opportunity of proving his or her innocence.
Nor should our rules of pleading and conducting
public prosecutions give to the counsel for the
Crown an opportunity of prejudicing the jury
before a single witness is called. By this we
do not deny to the public prosecutor the right of
commenting upon the evidenc.e for the defence,
and of exposing its weakness and the web of
legal sophistry which the defending advocate
may weave. All we contend for is, that no
advantage should be given to the Crown which
is denied to the prisoner. Look at the trial of
Miss SMITH at Edinburgh. The procedure at
that unusually lengthened investigation is worthy
of imitation in England as the model of a criminal
trial, and one which our English and Irish law
courts would do well to study and strive to
imitate, Had MADELINE SMITH been tried in
London instead of Edinburgh, the form of pro-
ceedings would have been widely different, and
,he result probably less satisfactory.

The Lord Advocate, according to the system
in England, would have had an opening state-
ment, whereby he could have prejudiced the
minds of the jury. The cream of L'ANGELIER'S
memorandum book would have been laid bare,
notwithstanding the fact that the judges decided
against its production as evidence. This is but
one instance of the impolicy of these puny
statements. There is another injury inflicted by
the crown claiming the last reply, and thereby
g6ining an additional opportunity of damaging
the prisoner's defence. Transpose the trial of
Miss SMITH, at Edinburgh, and THOMAS FULLER
BACON, at Lincoln, on the same charge—the
evidence adduced, and the verdict given in each
case—and sure we are that no one will deny
that in the former there is every chance given
for a good def:nce, and that the case for the
prosecution is not propped up by granting to
the Crown privileges which, unjust as they are,
are reasonable. We think it is full time that our
criminal courts should be conducted after the
model of those in Scotland. Society would gain
by the change, and every one accused of crime
be certain that he or she would have a fair and
impartial trial at all hazards.