The Sun.
London, England, 1836-07-15 00:00:00

the liberty to state. The Noble Lord had also objected
to his bringing in the Bill at so late a period. Now he
would only say that the Bill came from the other House
of Parliament, and it was as competent for the Noble Lord
to have taken up the measure as himself ; but the Noble
Lord had suffered it to lay on their Lordships' table for
three or four weeks ; then what right had the Noble
Lord to complain of delay on his part ? But lie would
tell the House the history of the transaction. He (Lord
Lyndhurst) had held a con% ersation with the Noble Lord
the Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench in re-
ference to the subject, and it was his (Lord Denman's)
desire that lie should take charge of the measure ; and
further, that Noble Lord had requested him not to pro-
ceed with it immediately, because the report of the Com-
missioners, though it was ready, had not then been laid
on their Lordships' table, and he considered it essential
that the report should first be on the table, and be printed,
and in their Lordships' hands. Out of deference to the
opinion of that Noble Lord he had taken up the Bill, and
moved the second reading at the time he did. He had not
delayed the Bill at all, but had only acted in communica-
tion with other Noble Lords. He thought himself bound
to say so much in his own defence ; but he was very glad
to have the support of the Noble Lord as to Bill gene-
rally, though he (the Earl of Radnor) objected to the ex-
clusion of certain clauses. It was not his (Lord Lynd-
hurst's) suggestion that those clauses should be struck out.
The Noble and Learned Judge of the Court of King's
Ben-.:11, who had very great practical experience on the sub-
ject, had recommended the exclusion of those clauses ; and
the Learned Chief Baron of the Court of Exchequer, with
an experience equal, if not greater, had also entertained
the same opinion. .
The Earl of RADNOR said that the Noble Lord said
he had followed the opinion of Sir Michael Foster, but, ac-
cording to the record, exactly the contrary seemed to be
the case ; for the Noble Lord (Lyndhurst) appeared to
have said in the House of Commons upon the occasion al-
luded to—" That, however much lie might be disposed to
respect the opinion of Sir Michael Foster, this was not a
matter of authority, but a question which depended upon
the result of every day's experience."
Lord LYNDHURST—There must be some mistake ;
that is quite in opposition to Sir ISlichael Foster. lam not
responsible for that report.
Lord PLUNKET was of opinion that the Counsel for
the prisoner should be allowed the last word. He certainly
thought that that clause should be re-inserted.
Lord ABINGER could not support the clause which
gave prisoners the last word in all cases—such a course was
inconsistent with theory, inconsistent with practice, and,
indeed, he could not imagine upon what grounds it could
be allowed. If that clause were introduced into the Bill,
he was confident it would produce the greatest public in-
convenience. He certainly was ,at present favourable to
the Bill ; but, if this clause was inserted, it would un-
doubtedly be to him an argument for opposing the Bill
altogether.
Lord LYNDHURST said, as to the exclusion of the
clause regarding the depositions, that was the result of a
consultation among the Judges altogether.

Lord ABINGER did not consider the clause a very va-
luable one.

After an observation from Lord RADNOR,

The Earl of DEVON said that,in spite of allthe autho-
rity which was arrayed against him, he felt bound to express
his opinion that the measure could produce no good practi-
cal effect.

The Duke of RICHMOND thought that if they could
rely upon the juries of Jamaica and the colonies for just
discrimination, they might at least trust the juries before
whom this Bill would operate, and that at any rate it would
be much better that some guilty persons should escape than
that a single innocent one should suffer. As to the clause
respecting the " last word," for the sake of uniformity of
practice alone, which was highly desirable, he thought the
clause must be admitted.

Lord LYNDHURST would have no objection to the
insertion of a declaratory clause ; but he had been told
that there were a great many new magistrates in the country
who would not allow persons to appear before them on
summary convictions.

The LORD CHANCELLOR thought it essential to
justice that the prisoner should be supplied with a copy of
the depositions. In reference to the clause for allowing the
prisoner the last word, he clearly thought it should be in-
serted, because it would prevent the evidence from being
kept back from fear of a reply, and would at least save the
Court two speeches ; for the prosecutor's Counsel would
not reply if a further reply was allowed to the Counsel for
the prisoner. Upon the whole question he was happy to
see that all objections were lost sight of in the approbation
which the principle of the Bill met with. The time was
now gone by when it could be said that " Prisoners hang
that jurymen may dine."—( A laugh.) It would no longer be
permitted that whilst in all other matters where the object
was the investigation of truth a just method was adopted, a
different course should be pursued in cases which concerned
life and property. One of the witnesses examined before
before the Commission had spoken so forcibly as to that
anomaly, that lie would trouble their Lordships by reading
an extract. [The Learned Lord then read an extract to
the following effect :—" A person might be tried for an act
which in one point of view became a treasonable offence,
and then it would be considered an overt act of treason—
and he would be allowed the benefit of counsel ; he might
be tried for the same act, viewed in the light of a theft, and
that would be a felony—then he could not have counsel ;
he might be tried for the same act as a mere misdemeanor
—and then again he would be entitled to make his defence
by counsel"—(Laughter)—so that they gave him counsel
in the first case, none in the second, and counsel again in the
third, and all that was done for the investigation of truth.]
—( A laugh.) He was aware, as all persons holding judicial
situations were, that it was much more easy to decide a case
after having heard only one side ; then they felt-na_doubt
—all was clear—(Laughter)—and some Noble Lords
appeared anxious to act upon this principle, " Don't let
them hear both sides, and then they won't doubt."—( Hear,
hear, and laughter.) But the true principle was this—
that when the facts of the case were themselves such as to
leave a doubt of the guilt, then the prisoner was entitled to
the benefit of that doubt. The prisoner was entitled to
the benefit of any doubt legitimately raised, and he (the
Lord Chancellor) would only say, let Counsel be heard, in
order, if he could, to create that doubt, and then let the
prisoner take the advantage of it.
Lord NV HARNCLIeFE replied.
The Noble Lord's amendment was negatived without a
division, and the report was then received.
'A declaratory clause respecting the depositions was in-
serted upon the motion of Lord Lyndhurst, and
The Duke of RICHMOND moved that clause 4 be
inserted.
Lord ABINGER stated that he had a most decided ob-
jection to the clause.
'The Duke of RICHMOND then gave notice of his mo-
tion for to-morrow (this day).
Upon the motion of Lord GLENELG the Punishment
of Offences (Cape of Good Hope) Bill was react a second
time.

On the motion of the Earl of RADNOR the Toll on
Steam Carriages Bill was read a second time, and referred
to a Select Committee.
On the motion of the Earl of DEVON the London and
Drogheda Railway Bill was read a second time.
'The Church Discipline Bill went through a Committee,
and several other Bills were forwarded a stage.—Adjourned.