The Sun.
London, England, 1836-06-24 00:00:00

and also that sor.lething like warmth and zeal would be in-
tro,doced into Courts of Justice if Counsel wefe found to argue
on behalf of prisoners ; but he thought that the e: is anticipated
bad been greatly exaggerated. lie had b:2en in the Court of
King's Bench, and hail heard many cases of misdemeanour
tried there, under the superintendence. of the Lord Chief Jus-
tice ; and he never found any want of order or of the
tran-
quiilitky neetssary to the ends of justice. ,The.,sa.m..entre3nolianrt:
tolr7tnoint
applied to Assizes. There was anodicr most im,:ot
Whet was the best mode of investigating truth
? It was said
that in the av,gumeßtt of Counsel passion w0bu.1di,..11:.u),.,t,t,a co
for fair inquiry'. Ile had considered -that.° , ,
little Coutacl eisladoutthoisf
Dtop.iiiitt!tlytetr); hmeatiticardedcorn
-upon circumstantial evidence
privilege. In cases dependin:
no man could venture to that it was not of the utmost
whether"as
im-
portance that Cot'.:.-acl should have an opprtunity of olyierVin4
upon the evidence. Another objection was that the ebaiitt;.
tars of the judges would be affected by the thante, and
that if a speech. were' made on
prisoner.
the judge would nave to reply to its dh 1 the.; appear to
he a party against the prisoner% at denied tip a the judge
would have any. such duty tn 14trtorm ; for if he exposed the
sophistries of the Counsel.; the'inconsistencies of the evidence,
and connected any errors of by directing • • his
notes, attention to Ili,
notes, he woy',l
. e doing abundantly sufficient for the ends of
justice., lie would submit that the present practice was un-
sutorted by authority, that if it were continued it would act
• partially between the accuser and the accused, that it was
contrary to the practice of all civilised countries, and that the
alteration was required because it was essential to the due in-
veatigation of truth in the most important questions that could
come before a Court of criminal justice.—( Hear.)
Lord WYNFORD begged to be understood as by no
means opposed to giving Counsel to prisoners, far he had never
yet. heard any reason against prisoners having Counsel which
did not go the fell length of declaring that Counsel were of
no usie in any case whatever. From ids own experience he
should say that he had efttn felt the want of Counsel in cri-
minal eases. He remembered a case on -circuit in which a
maa was tried for a murder in Leicestershire. It was alleged
that ho had come out of Yorkshire for the purpose. The
trial lasted the whole day, and he had stated very strongly to
the jury the fact that a woman had sworn that the prisoner left
Barnsley, it, Yorkshire,- on the Saturday, just in sufficient
time to get to Melton Mowbray, in Leicestershire, to commit
the murder. He had no sooner left the Bench than the attor-
ney came to him, and stated that the old woman was mistaken
in the week. He immediately arrested the execution of the
prisoner, and the man's two masters were brought from York-
shire, when they produced books showing the work that be
had done for a week after. Upon representation of the cir-
cumstances the man received a free pardon. Now, in that
case, if Counsel had called his attention to the real fact be
should immediately hare directed an acquittal. A Mr. Wyldc,
who was Sheriff of London, during his shricvalty saved the
lives of five persons by an investigation of the facts subse-
quent to conviction, and if thiS were the case in one year, how
could it be said that justice was properly administered ? He
had always been of opinion that prisoners should be permitted
to make a full defence by Counsel ; but at the same time he
was aware that some additional assistance would be necessary.
His Noble and Learned Friend talked of trying the experi-
ment. The gaols were now very light, and he thought that
a better opportunity than the present could not be selected.
He would, however, confess that he should like the Bill bet-
ter if it contained some provision entitling prisoners to have
Counsel.

the

Lord LYNDHURST explained.
Lord DENMAN apprehended that it was clear his Noble
and Learned Friend opposite was arguing merely in favour
of the principle of the Bill, and that the consideration of the
details would be reserved to the Committee, if their Lord-
ships agreed to the second reading of the Bill. He was
anxious to take the earliest opportunity of returning his,
thanks to his Noble and Learned Friend for introducing this
measure, which he thought was essential to the honour and
due administration of the law, to the course of truth, and the
protection of innocence. He was strongly tempted to refer
their Lordships to one of the standing orders of the House,
which their Lordships might, perhaps, not be aware stated this
principle. He alluded to the forty-seventh Standing Order,
which bad reference to the trial of such as came to the judi-
cature in that House. The effect of it was that as the House
of Lords was the Court highest over all others, the proceed-
ings should be most fair and equal, and that, therefore, in all
cases of moment, the defendant shall have copies of deposi-
tions pro and contra, after publication, and that the de-
fendant might have a learned Counsel to assist him. This was
a most express authority in favour of the principle of the Bill.
The Noble and Learned Lord then referred to the case of
a Peer twice tried for high treason in 1745, at. which time
the privilege of having Counsel was denied by the House of
Commons, and he taught that the words of Simon, Lord
Lovett, who was the Peer in question, which be was about to
read, would carry conviction to every man capable of being
convinced. They were—" If you do not allow me counsel,
my Lords, it is impossible for me to make any defence by rea-
son of my infirmity, for I neither can see nor hear. I have
come up to your Lordships' bar at the hazard of my life. I
have fainted several times already. I was up early—as early
as four o'clock. I ask assistance, and if you do not allow me
counsel it will be impossible for me to make any defence."
This description of infirmity might answer, for aught their
Lordships knew, the description of. every prisoner put on his
trial for his life. The real question was, what did the prin-
ciple require, and what did justice and truth now demand at
the hands of the legislature? When he was at the As-
sizes at Liverpool, two Scotch Judges sat with him on
the Bench, and one case that came before him was a pro-
secution for uttering a counterfeit sixpence, which was
merely a misdemeanor. The next was a prosecution for
uttering two sixpences, which was a felony ; in the former
case th prisoner had a Counsel ; but in the latter he was not
allowed to have one. The practice by the ancient law of
England was undoubtedly to allow prisoners to defend them-
selves by Counsel; but now it almost amounted to sending a
man into Court with a halter round his neck, to show cause,
as it were, against a rule why he should not go forth to be
executed.—( Hear, hear.) The single argument in favour of
the present practice was, that the case, in regard to criminal
offences, ought to be made out so clearly than no Counsel
should be able to shake it. The fallacy of the argument was
evident, because it must be utterly impossible to say whether
the case was or was not so made out, unless the opportunity
were given to Counsel to attempt to upset. it. In favour of
the principle of this measure he had the authority of his late
lamented friend, Sir James Mackintosh, who had advanced
upon that subject the most convincing arguments. He wished
also to state that Lord Brougham had authorised him to say
that it was his (Lord Brougham's) firm conviction that the
Bill ought to pass. In 1826 that Noble Lord hbd become a
convert to that opinion, and had then spoken in the House of
Commons on behalf of such a proposition. He was exceed-
ingly sorry thatlhe Report of the Commissioners was not be-
fore their Lordships, because there was much that was highly
important in that document. No less a person than the late
Attorney-General (Sir F. Pollock) had stated before those
Commissioners that he had seen convictions take place and
executions follow whilst in his judgment such decisions ought
not to have been pronounced. It was also the opinion of Mr.
Alderman Harmer, who must have had considerable practical
experience, that many of his clients had been unjustly con-
victed, and be ( Alderman Harmer) gave this remarkable rea-
-1 son—because, he said, the guilty man very often made a good
defence, whereas he never yet knew of an innocent man, who
upon being called upon, could make any defence. It was said
that the Bill would rather do harm than good to the prison-
ers. Why, it was not the object of the measure to do good to
prisoners generally, but to prevent the innocent from suffering
for the guilty. He could not conceive that there could be any
person acting in the character of a Judge, who would not feel
desirous to hear Counsel on both sides. He was not entitled
to refer to the opinion of the Judges, because they had de-
clined on account of their position to give evidence before the
Commission ; but he could not refrain from alluding to an ob-
servation which had fallen from one of his brethren, who had
said, "the fate of the men in all probability depends upon the
conclusion to which I shall come ; this may be a long, con-
tradictory, intricate case, and yet I am 'allowed no time to
form my opinion upon its merits, except the short period which
is occupied by the ceremony of the witness taking the oath."
He thought that the situation of the unfortunate man, when he
was called upon for his defence, but was at the same time told
that his Counsel could not speak for him, was scarcely less en-
viable than the situation of the Judge who had to pronounce
upon a case so brought before him, or than the situation of
of his Counsel, who might be standing by, feeling, perhai s,
that if he were allowed to speak he could place the matter in
a very different, and to his client much more favourable,
Lord ABINGER was understood to express an opinion in
favour of the principle of the measure, but at the same time to
qualify that opinion by an apprehension as to the consequences
which might ensue. He consequently thought it might be a
suggestion worth their Lordships' consideration whether so
great an experiment ought at once to be finally determined.
He must assent to the second reading, but he should feel
called upon to Oppose many of the details.
The LORD CHANCELLOR expressed his entire acqui-
escence in the principle of this measure. The Noble Lord
who had proposed the second reading to their Lordships had
said that he did so because no Member of his Majesty;§ Go-
vernment deemed disposed to take the matter up. He could
assure their Lordships that lie hied intender so. to do, though
he now rejoiced that he had not sooner moved !it, because he
had thereby secured the very able assistance of the Noble and
Learned Lord (Lyndhurst).
The Bill was then read a second time.
The Dublin Police Bill was read a third time, and passed.
INSTRUMENTS OF SASINE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Their Lordships resolved themselves into a Committee upon
this Bill, which, with two amendments, proposed by the Lord
Cnancellor, was afterwards reported to the House.
The Sale of Bread Bill passed through a Committee, and
was reported with amendments.
Their Lordships then adjourned, at a Quarter to Eight
o'Clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, Ju 23.
The SPEAK ER took the Chair at four o'clock.
STOCKPORT GAS COMPANY.
Lord F. EGERTON moved that the petition in the case of
the Stockport Gas Company should be referred to a Com-
mittee of Appeal.
Mr. MARSDEN opposed the motion.
After a few words from an Honourable 'MEMBER, the House
divided—

Aye 5.............................. 23
Noes
Majority against .................. 4226
DURHAM SOUTH-WEST RAILROAD.
Mr. HUME said, it would be recollected that the House
had laid down rules for the guidance of Committees upon
railroads. The Committee on the Durham South-west Rail-
road reported, but the Report contai4,d no answers to the sc-