The Sun.
London, England, 1836-07-28 00:00:00

iON, THURSDA Y, JULY 28, ft• 36.

general position, that the right of ratty Actuketi. t'd 6
heard is founded en prirreikAet laf keen; iil IninianitY; atiif
justice, as recogttlt,..ed lay the lA*s of tngland ; and also that
the prkorrs in all 'coifs glionld he entitled to Oki
This fill left the last Word in the Hands, not of
the prisoner', bet a the iikhsel for the ptoscetitidn
gave the pr(Aekiikt`,ll.• tiro Speches 16ile if6r
an t 1 tbAls plaOed )titit t'Af 1t81;64C position. He
6o1.11(.1 refer 'tothe c'slAerVe.thins of a distinguished judge—the
'resent bi.r4 Lyndhurst—whn when Attorney-General, and
ni-in a Bill was introduced which proposed to give to prisoners
defence by Counsel, objected to it en the groond,libatit. gaki3
two speeches to the prosecution Coikntei; as this Bill did; Mid
also because it left the 6-4 ids in the litikfet the Prn-
secntot,. That watt th'e PribleiPle tlVe bill hitiothiced id
that if UOttnsel Were allot `ed
atrffo, AtiA to tall 140.;i1a of
ute consequence
would be that the VOLINei for the prosecutor would be
401ftitiOrt it speech in reply ; and on this ground the At-
iorney-General of that day, the present Lord Lyndhurst,
offered his opposition to the Bill. He confessed his asto-
nishment that such an able advocate should send down this
Bill in its present form. He could cite the opinions of the
present Lord Chief Justice Tyndal to the same effect. If
this Bill passed into a law as it stood, it would have one of
two effects—either the prisoner would stand at a disad-
vantage, or the Jury seeing the disadvantage he was placed
in, would be inclined to return a verdict in his favour.
The principle introduced by the Lords was opposed to
reason and common justice, and he would move the rejec-
tion of the measure altogether, rather than consent to a
principle so totally at variance with the original principle of
the Bill. The Hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the
rejection of the amendments introduced by the Lords.
Mr. C. BULLER was sorry to hear the Hon. Gentle-
man talk of rejecting the measure altogether, because lie
thought the amendments of the Lords might be so altered
as to make very little difference between the two Houses.
The Hon. Member proposed that the House should agree
to the Lords' amendments, that the second clause be re-
jected, and that, at the end of the first clause, there
should be inserted the following words : " provided always
that Counsel for the person or persons accused shall be
heard in reply to any speech made by the Counsel for the
prosecution, whether before or after the evidence has been
given?'

Sir THOMAS FREMANTLE wished to know
whether the Hon. Member intended to reinstate the Bill
as it was before it went to the House of Lords?
Mr. EWART said that he proposed to strike out several
amendments, which had been made by the House of Lords.
Mr. HUME trusted his Hon. Friend (Mr. Buller)
would not persevere in his amendment.
Mr. BULLER wished to adopt the amendments of the
Lords, and also to add another amendment.
Mr. GOULBURN said that unless the Hon. Member
adopted the amendment of the Lords upon the first clause,
he could not add another amendment.
Sir F. POLLOCK thought prisoners had better be
left in the situation in which they now were, than deprive
them of that commiseration which they now had. He re-
collected an instance of an indictment for perjury, in which
he had most important evidence to produce for the de-
fendant ; but knowinc, that an eminent advocate, who was
vsfy successful in such cases, would have the last word,
he had been obliged to weigh the value of each in his
mind, and had withheld the evidence, the consequence of
which was, that his client was convicted. That re-
sponsibility no advocate should be called upon to
exercise. In civil cases there was not so much danger in
giving the last word to the plaintiff, although even in that
arrangement there had been much injustice perpetrated.
By th Bill as it was agreed to in the other House, the
prisoner's Counsel was to have the last word ; and if he
called witnesses, and the testimony was not of great im-
portance, the prosecuting Counsel would not take up
the time of the Court with a reply, knowing that the
prisoner's counsel would be entitled to the last word ;
whereas, if they adopted the amendment of the House of
Lords, the prosecutor would always reply. If they gave the
counsel for the accused the right to the last word, he would
undertake to say that the right of the prosecutor's Counsel
would in very few instances be exercised. He believed that
in many instances this Bill would be utterly unimportant. The
use of the Bill was not in the ordinary cases that came
before Quarter Sessions, where the prisoner was taken
with the stolen property upon him. The object of the
Bill was to secure that justice should be done in all
cases by the means of addressing the Jury—means
which would not in many instances be used. He con-
sidered the amendment made by the House of Lords in
this particular an unjust one. He did not know whether
there should be time for further consideration, or what
steps should be taken, in order to get a fair settlement
of the question. He must protest against their adoption
of the Bill in its present shape, as it would place the I
prisoners in greater jeopardy than they were now.
Mr. POULTER always had, and was now willing to
agree with the sentiments, on this question, of the Hon.
and Learned Member for Huntingdon (Sir F. Pollock).
He entirely agreed that the prisoner ought to have the last
word, if he was to be allowed to have a speech at all.
Mr. O'CONNELL concurred in all that had fallen from
the Hon. and Learned Member for Huntingdon, and should
not have troubled the House but for what had fallen from
the Honourable Gentleman who had just sat down.
It was strange how gentlemen with the fairest intentions
would delude themselves. The Hon. Gentleman imagined
it was better to let a man have favour than justice.
Although the Bill contained much useful matter, yet, if
the amendments of the Lords were to stand part
of the Bill, he would rather reject the Bill altogether.
Was any thing more absurd than to allow the Counsel for
the prosecution to state circumstances, and draw inferences,
while the Counsel for the prisoner was not allowed
to say a single word ?—( Hear, hear, hear.) His decided
conviction of the law as altered by the House of Lords
was, that it would be worse than the present bad system ;
for unless the last word was given to the prisoner, it would
be better for him to give him no opportunity of speaking at all.
Mr. MACLEAN had voted against the Bill on a former
occasion, because he considered it a great innovation in the
criminal law of the country, and therefore that it was well
deserving of the greatest consideration of that House.
He concurred in many of the observations of the,Hon. and
Learned Member for Kilkenny, because he felt that if the
Counsel for the prisoner were allowed to address the jury
in reply, it would be of inestimable advantage to him.
If any alteration were to be made in the present system, let
it be a complete one, and not such a contracted one as was
contemplated by the amendments of the other House.
What was there to prevent an alteration of the law to this
effect :—That the indictment having been read, evidence
in support of it should be given, and subsequently the evi-
dence of the prisoner's witnesses to rebut it ; then that the
prosecutor's counsel should be heard, and after him the
prisoner's counsel, and then that the case should be left in
the hands of the Judge and the Jury.
Mr. PARKER thought the Bill, as it came down from
the House of Lords well worthy the attention of the House.
Mr. HARDY admitted that the Bill as it came down
from the Lords was anomalous, but he did not wish to see
it got rid of on that account. He could not understand
why the cases of capital offences and misdemeanors should
not be dealt with in the same way.
Mr. STRUTT said that his objection to the clause as
amended was, that it would have the effect of excluding
material evidence, which might be essential to the ends of
truth and justice.
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL expressed his determination
to oppose the amendments.

Sir: T. FREMANTLE was convinced that. the pri-
soner would be rather injured than served by allowing his
Counsel the right to reply. However, as there 'seemed
to be a feeling that such a measure was called for, he, for
one, though entertaining a strong opinion against it, should
support the Bill as amended by the ether branch of the
Legislature.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL differed with the Right
Baronet who had just spoken, and thought it would be the
best course to send the Bill to a Select Committee, to re-
consider the clauses. He had no doubt they would they
would reconcile the discordant opinions which existed be-
tween the two Houses, and considerably amend the Bill.
He confessed that, for his part, he would like to see one

speech only made by the prosecutor and one by the de-
fendant, but he thought the prudent course would be to

submit it to a Select Committee.

Mr. EWA RT thought that any further reference to a
a Committee was quite was unnecessary, with any view to
any agreement of opinion resulting from the slight differ-
ences of opinion existing between that House and the
other. The Bill had been quite sufficiently considered
In Committees of that House.

Mr. C. BULLER withdrew his amendment, to make
way for that of the Noble Lord, and the Bill was unanani-
mously referred to a Select Committee.

HACKNEY CARRIAGES.
Alderman WOOD then moved the Order of the Day,
that the House go into Committee on the Hackney Car-
riages Bill.

Dr. BOWRING opposed the motion, -and, as an
amendment, moved the postponement of the Committee to
that day six months.
The House then divided, when there appeared,
Ayes
Noes
Majority for going into Committee
Ou our return to the gallery the House was in Com-
mittee.

After some desultory conversation on a clause of the Bill,
(we believe the 21st clause) an amendment was proposed,
that it be omitted.

The Committee divided, when there appeared-
-32

Ayes
Noes

Majority for the clause —2B

„
On dstils6 24; lir?,l3(i*lil NO proposed a verbal amend-
ttleni; tv icn 'the cleared di6sion.
ridrirl'ff Out; didgetinii we unnerstdod that the tiOtis a' is
'cldunted; and forty Mei-fibers edt being pretient; ihe Ilduse,
eight d'cloCk; stood adiOurtied until td-dally;