The Sun.
London, England, 1836-03-03 00:00:00

- , ,
did not think it would conduce to the dignity of either to
create a right hitherto unheard of, for some felon, perhaps '
only three weeks returned from Botany Bay, to stand up
in Court and insist on pleading for his comrade at the bar.
—(Hear.) He adjured the House not to think of any
hasty legislation on the subject.—(Hear.)
Mr. C. WYNN was favourable to the principle of the
amendment, as far as it was intended to ,permit attorneys
to act as Counsel in the absence of Barrisiers. The words
of the clause—" Counsel learned in the law," he thought
would exclude attorneys, and he, therefore, wished some
more general term to be introduced.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought that there
could be no doubt that when there were no other practi-

tioners but attorneys the Court would consider them as
entitled to plead under the terms of the clause.
Mr. HUME thought the principle of the amendment a
good one, but he begged his Hon. Friend to consider if it
might not endanger the passing of the Bill elsewhere.
Mr. EWART had no objection to the principle or word-
ing of the amendment, if the House thought fit to adopt it.
Mr. O'CONNELL hoped that his Hon. Friend would
not press his amendment.
Mr. WAKLEY simply wished by his amendment that
prisoners should have the privilege of selecting for their de-
fence either Counsel or attorney, as they might wish. If,
however, the amendment was considered objectionable he

should not, certainly, press it.
Sir F. POLLOCK said, that if the object of the amen(
ment was to allow attorneys to practise in the absence o
Counsel be saw no great objection to it ; but if it were no'
confined to this, it might be attended with considerable
difficulty to have this important measure carried elsewhere.
He sincerely hoped that the Bill would meet with a favour-
able reception elsewhere, and he had reason to believe that
the opinions of the most eminent men at the Bar were fa-
vourable to its success.
Mr. POTTER felt convinced that if attorneys were
prevented practising in Courts which barristers attended
great mischief would arise. It was well known that at
some Quarter Sessions attorneys alone practiced, at others
both barristers and attorneys, particularly at places where
the Sessions were got through in one day. It frequently
happened that young Counsel attended those Courts, which
were also attended by solicitors of long standing and great
ability. Indeed, at the Quarter Sessions of the town he
had the honour to represent, that was the case, and he felt
convinced that if attorneys were by the Bill before the
House prevented appearing. for prisoners, great hardship
would be felt by those solicitors who" were peculiarly fitted
for that kind of practice ; besides the expense to those
charged with offences would be much increased, for it was
well that the fees of attorneys were less than those
of barristers. He trusted the House would not prohibit
attorneys pleading, particularly in those Courts where it had
been usual for them to do so.
Mr. BERNAL hoped that the Hon. Member for Fins-
bury would withdraw his amendment. If the Bill should
go to the other House of Parliament with this amendment,
it would have no more chance of passing there than China
would have of becoming part and parcel of Great Britain.
—(Laughter.)
After a few words from Mr. S. O'ButEN, the SOLI-
CITOR-GENERAL, and Mr. O'CONNELL,
Sir F. POLLOCK said, that if the Hon. Member for
Finsbury would withdraw his amendment, he (Sir F. Po-
lock) would propose in its stead the following words, which
he thought would obviate all difficulty :—" By Counsel
learned in the law, or by attorney in Courts where attorneys
practise as Counsel."
Mr. WYNN thought the words just proposed by his
Learned Friend would meet the purpose that all wished.
Mr. WAKLEY was willing to take, as an instalment
of his own amendment, that proposed by the Hon. and
Learned Member, and he should, therefore, withdraw hi:
own proposition.
The amendment of Sir R. Pollock was then agreed to.
After which the clause, as amended, was agreed to.
On clause 2 being read,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL objected to that par
of the clause which took from Counsel for the prosecution
the right of last reply, and gave it to the prisoner's Counsel.
There was no ground for altering the law in this respect.
There might, perhaps, be particular cases where it wouldhe
an injustice ; but let those special cases be provided for, and
not a sweeping clause of this nature introduced, which he
had no doubt would have the effect, if passed, of endanger-
ing the success of the Bill.
Sir F. POLLOCK said that there were no words
strong enough in which he could declare his sincere opinion
that if this provision were taken out of the clause it would
be much better to put the Bill altogether into the fire, for,
thus mutilated, it would act only as a snare for the prisoner.
Unless the great principle of allowing to prisoners a full
defence, their Counsel having the last word, were carried
out to its utmost extent, it would be far better that t.l •
Bill had never been introduced. He was persuaded that
any evil that could arise from granting this privilege to
Counsel for prisoners would gradually correct itself, and
that in the result fair and impartial justice would be done.
He considered that a gross injustice was (lone by giving to
the prosecuting COunsel the last word. He believed that,
generally speaking, the Bill would be in operation in nine-
teen cases out of twenty ; for in about that proportion of
cases prisoners did not employ Counsel at all. It was,
however, quite essensial that this clause should be carried
in all its integrity, and the House, he thought, might safely
look to Juries to correct any evil that might arise out of it.
Mr. O'CONNELL perfectly agreed with the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman who had just sat down, that it would
be better to relinquish the Bill altogether than to pass it
without this clause in all its parts. There was no country
in the world where law was known that the prisoner had
not the last word except in this. In Scotland it was tl:e
case ; and in France, not only had the prisoner's counsel
the last word, but the prisoner himself had a right to add
acy thing he pleased after. When man's life and charac-
ter was at stake, surely it was not justice to deny him every
opportunity of explaining, not only every thing that had
been sworn against him, but everything that had been said
against him. If this clause were rejected the Bill would be
of little or no value.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL did not mean to press
his objection; He would defer to what seemed to be the
opinion of the majority.
Col. PERCEVAL understood the Hon. and .Learne.l
Gentleman opposite (Mr. O'Connell) to say that he had
not read the evidence of the Member for Huntingdon.
Perhaps there were other parts of the evidence which be
had not read, though he pronounced a very decided opinion
upon it. He received a letter from a friend of his, Mr.
Charles Phillips, complaining of a most unwarranted attack
made upon him by the Hon. and Learned Member for
Dublin, in which he charged him with having given false
evidence before a Committee of the other House, with a
view to the increase of his own emoluments as a barrister.
He would ask the Hon. and Learned Gentleman whether
he had read the evidence of Mr. Phillips? If he did not,
he now called upon him to retract so gross and so un-
founded an imputation upon an honourable man who de-
served better.
Mr. O'CONNELL said that upon the occasion alluded
to he did not name Mr. Phillips. He said he would prove
the evidence. He did not then know, except from public
report, that it was the evidence of Mr. Phillips ; but the
Gallant Colonel now very kindly introduced the name of
Mr. Phillips to afford an opportunity 'of quarrel between
two old friends. He was most ready to retract anything
which fell from him that could be considered as reflecting
upon a most worthy man, whom he had the honour of know-
ing for many years.
After a few words from Colonel PERCEVAL and Mr.
EWART,
Colonel PERCEVAL said the Member for Dublin cast
an imputation upon him of endeavourinc, to produce a quar-
rel between two friends. He had therefore a right to read
the letter in his own defence. A request was made to him
personally by Mr. Phillips to read his letter.—(The Hon.
Member commenced reading the letter amidst cries of
" Read, read," and " No, no.")
Mr. O'CONNELL said Mr. Phillips must be now a
very different man from what he had known him ever be-
fore to have been if the quarrel between them was not al-
ready made up.
Colonel PERCEVAL commenced reading the letter
again.

Dr. BOWRING rose to order.
Mr. O'CONNEL (without rising from his seat)—Let
him read it.
Colonel PERCEVAL then read the letter:-
49, Chancery-lane, Saturday evening.
" My dear Sir—The prompt and generous manner in which
you repelled the attack which Mr. O'Connell dared to make
upon my character has imposed on me the pleasing duty of
proving that I deserved your vindication. You have now pe•
rused my evidence, and I ask you whether I am not well war-
ranted in declaring the imputation cast on me to be a base in
vention? It was a grievous imputation. No less than that of
having for my own emolument, and that of my brother Barris-
ters, endeavoured to impede a useful public measure, and that,
too, on my oath That the Bill in question would have the
very opposite effect, so far as I am concerned, every member
of the profession knows. But I scorn so abject a vindication.
If I had dared, before the high-minded and honourable Com-
mittee who examined me, to assign so vile a motive for my
evidence they would have driven me with well-deserved in-
dignation from their presence. I was no voluntary witness,
I was called upon unexpectedly, and by a compulsory pro
cess. To those Noblemen I appeal, then, one and all,
whether there is the shadow of a pretence for this imputa-
tion ? But no man knows better than Mr. O'Connell that sordid
interest has never been my guide. He ought to remember
that in defiance of the powerful party to which you belong,
which was then omnipotent in Ireland, and amongst whom
you know my natural patrons were, I sacrificed, for what I
considered his persecuted sect, every hope of emolument or
promotion. I claim no merit for acting conscientiously ; but
surely the fact ought to have shielded me from such an accu-
sation, and from such a quarter. How I have incurred his

"
• _