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

tow,. •••-•,•••••••••

PERIAL PAItLIAMEIN T.

HOUSE OF LORDS, .Tuxr.• 03.

The Loan Ca,..:•;cr:J.Lon took seat on the weiasaek at
iihree o'clock, and witnesses were heard from that hour until
past five o'clock on the Stafford iiisfranchisetnent Bill, when
the further proceedings on t';:e Bill were adjourned until three
o'clock to-morrow (this '!,a,y).
A PEER, whose u:,,me we could not learn, presented a peti-
tion from a place is Ayrshire, in favohr of the Irish Municipal
Bill as I...a7isc,d by the House of Lords.

A irrxber
lioisr.! of Cotimulls

of Railroad Bilis were brought up frotn the

Vac Duke of LEINS'fEIZ. presented t;ome petal:T.l.s
sg..tinst tittles, but we could not catch the nranes of tho places
fr om which they came, his Grace being almo,st toWlz", inaudible
the Gallery.
Lord WYNFO RD presented a pet'xion from Stockport,
in favour of the Irish AutliciF7A Bill cei pnssed by their Lord-
ships' House.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE presented a petition from
the mayor and coveoratioa. of Devizes, praying that iheir
Lordships would reconsider the Bill for the regulation of mu-
nicipal eorporatie-As in Ire'land, so as to meet the just expecta-
tions of the per,ple of tl..at country, and to fulfil the hopes in-
spired by the -words of 'cis Majesty's speech, and promote the
kappiness and prospe..-ity of the whole empire.
Earl BRO ';VNL OW presented a petition from llorneastle
in favour• of the Irish Municipal Bill, as passed by their Lord
ships Ho•ase,

PRISONERS' COUNSEL BILL.
Lori LYNDHURST, in moving the Order oithe Day for
the second reading of the Prisoners' Counsel Bill, which had
beeen several days upon the trble of their Lordships' House,
eves desirous of stating to their Lordships why it was that he
t aok that duty upon himself. His Noble and Learned Friends
who were connected with his Majesty's Government were so
much occupied with other important duties, that it was not
possible for them to pay that attention to the present Bill
which was necessary to pass it through their Lordships' Hawse,
and therefore it was that he felt it to he his duty ten bring it
under their Lordships consideration. He would say one word
as to the history of the Bill. In the sessir,a of 1834, a Bill
similar to the present Bill passed the louse of Commons,
end was read a first time in their Lerdships' House ; but it
proceeded no farther. In the last session the same descrip-
tion of Bill passed the Haase, of Commons, having been read
a second time in that Hcease without a division. When it
came up to their Lordships' House, it was referred to a Com-
mittee; but it was so late in the session before the evidence
was printed, that the Committee made no Report upon
it. In the prsesent session the Bill now on the table came
up to their Lordships' House, having passed the other
Haase of Parliament ; and was referred, as in the last
year, to a Select Committee, who had reported in favour
of the: principle of the Bill, and thus the Bill came upon
their: Lordships' table. The Secretary of State for the
Home Department had directed a Commission to ineedre
into the state of the criminal law of the country. The Com-
mission had done so, and. had examined a number of wit-
nesses of various classes who were likely to thou any light
on the subject, and, after the most full inquiry, the Com-
missioners reported unanimously in favour of 4,-he principle of
the Bill being attopted. It was under these circumstances
that he now submitted the Bill to their Lordships' consi-
deration for a second reading. The: first point that must
strike their Lordships in lookim; at the subject was the
glaring ;.nconsistency of' the prey
eat anomalous state of the
law, in the litigation of property of any description or in
any shape a man might have the assistance of as many Counsel
as Le thought proper; but is a case that affected his character,
hi's liberty, and his life, Ise was deprived of that assistance.
'ibis must appear to all, us not only inconsistent and unsatis-
tisfactory, but absolutely absurd. In the case of crimes of
the deepest dye, hie;re treason, Counsel were allowed to ad-
dress the jury for e:Oe, prisoner, and this was also the case in
the lowest class of crimes—misdemeanors;
and thus in the
two extreme classes of crimes Counsel were allowed to ad-
dress the it's.). upon the facts, whereas in the intermediate
cases this orivilege was denied to prisoners. This was cer-
tainly },ordering„ on absurdity. He could multiply instances
to the'ir Lordships of the anomalous state of the law, but he
was. sure it could not be necessary. When the question was
agetated some ten or twelve years ago the opinion of the
p rofession was decidedly againt the change; but from the
inquiries which he had made he thought be might undertake
to say that a great majority of the profession was now in fa-
your of the principle of the present Bill. He knew a great
many cases in which he had been concerned either as
Counsel or sitting as Judge, in which the evidence had been
so extensive and so complicated in its character that it would
have been ridiculous to say that could not be contradicted,
and drat the observations of Counsel upon it would not have
been of the greatest iinportaece both to the Jury, to the in-
terests of the prisoner, and to enlighten the mind of the Judge.
H.O would beg leave to refer the House to a letter written by
`Sir Richard Atkins with reference to the trial of Lord Rus-
sell. There was another authority to which he would refer—
certainly an extreme one. It was that of Lord Jefferies, who
upon one trial said that lie thought it was a hard case that any
n'.an should 'nave Counsel to defend himself on a twopenny
trespass, and have witnesses examined upon oath, when, if he
had committed murder—nay high treason, as the law then
stood—he could not have had a Counsel or witnesses examined
on oath, though his life, estate, and honour were all alike
concerned. This was part of the authority in support of the
Fill ; and, on the other side, he was hound to admit, there was
-the respected name of Sir Michael Foster, but that learned
person had not expressed himself strongly upon the subject.
He (Lord Lyndhurst) had looked into his book, and he made
an extract from it, in which he expressed himself in words
very guarded with respect to the question. He said—" lam
far from disputirg the propriety of this rule ; but in all these
cases we must be governed by a balance of the evils and of
the inconveniences." He (Lord Lyndhurst) admitted this
authority, and that even the doubts of this Learned Judge
were entitled to great attention, and it was in consequence
partly of those doubts, and in consequence of an examination
of what had appeared to him to be the evils and inconvenience
of departing from the present system, that he had formerly
opposed in the other House of Parliament a Bill similar in
principle to the present. He had since had occasion to ob-
serve the progress of opinion on the subject, to make obser-
vations respecting the opinions of the Bar and the Bench, to
see the working of the system, and the result had been that
lie was satisfied that the evils and the inconveniences had been
greatly exaggerated, and that—being greatly exagge•
rated--they ought not to be put in competition with
that which the obvious justice of the case appeared to
require. Now, it was said that prisoners might them-
selves address a jury, and Mr. Sergeant Hawkins bad said
that the address of a party accused, was likely to be attended
'with more beneficial effects, than when made by a
Counsel. With all clue submission to this authority, it ap-
peared to him (Lord Lyndhurst) to b,e a mere mockery.—
( Hear.) How few were the number of persons, even persons
of education, who were accustomse to public speaking, and
how few were there who, when esalled upon for the first time
to exercise this power—this rift—could go into the merits of
a case, point out the improleabilities of the evidence, and the
inconsistencies which preer:iled either on the one side or on
the other, so as to meet the ends of justice? This observation
applied to persons ref education ; but how few persons of
education were put upon their trial? The great mass of pri-
soner' were eniefe,rined and uninstructed, and when the cir-
cumstance of three condition, the novelty of their position, the
anxiety of mine which it would naturally create, and the fatal
consequences which would result to them from the mere slip
of a phrase, now absurd it was to say that it was better for the
party accused to defend himself, and that he would do it with
more effect than if his defence were conducted by Counsel.
What kind of speech, he would ask, for a prosecution, was
likely to have the most fatal effects against the accused? He
would take the case of a party indicted for a capital offence,
where the case depended on the great mass of circumstantial
evidence; what speech, he repeated, would have the most
fatal effects against the accused ? Most assuredly the
speech of an ingenious Counsel, who would collect every
little fact of a case, arrange them in such order, and
in such a manner, and intersperse them with such oc-
casion observations, so as to lead to the conclusion of
guilt. Speeches of such a description were usually intro-
sluced with expressions of great mercy towards the prisoner,
end the hope that he would be able to extricate himself
from the foils in which he was entangled. Such a speech was
likely to produce a much more powerful effect on the minds
of the jury than any speech of zeal or passion. But there was
another consideration of still greater importance, which was the
experience of the world on this matter. What was the practice
of the other countries of civilise.d Europe? England boasted
of the tendeeness of her laws—at least in the adminis-
tration of them, and he thought she stood above all the
civilized nations of Europe in this respect. Nosy there was
not a country in Europe that did not allow a prisoner to
defend himself by Counsel on matters of fact as well as of
law, except this
e.ountry and Ireland. Look at the case of
Scotland. Then, a
party accused of felony had a right of
making a full,
defence by
Counsel on the matter of fact ; and
could the Pnwee,
then, justify that privilege in one part of the
country Fend deny it to the other? It was said that there was
a difference between the laws; but he believed there was no
grotueds of distinction sufficient to warrant the practice in the
noernern part of the island to the exclusion of the rest of the
empire. Again, what was the case in the English colonies,
where the criminal law of England prevailed ? Mr. Wallace
said that prisoners were allowed to be defended by Counsel
or. matters of fact and of law, and that no inconvenience had
arisen from that practice in those places. In the United States,
'where the common law of England was the common law of
the country, this Privilege was allowed without inconvenience
or complaint of the existence of those evils which, it was
supposed, would arise from its establishment in England.
What then what the objection? The only one hinted or al-
luded to, but which no one would openly avow, was time.
It was said that it would extend beyond measure the duration
of the sessions and assizes, that it would entail great expense
i had
on the country. This was stated as an objection; but t
always been protested against, because in a matter of life and
death everebody .must be satisfied that an argument, founded
on consiuerations of time and expense, ought to have no
weight in depriving a man' of a fair trial. There was another
objection which was nearly obsolete. It was—that a Judge
Iva% Counsel for the prisoner. A Judge could not be an ad-
vocate fcr a prisoner—that was not the office of a Judge ;
and if it were, he had no means of discharging his duty by
communicating with the prisoner, by ascertaining the cha-
racter of the witnesses. Another objection was, that the
change would lower the tone and charrer of judicial pro
ceedings in criminal matters. It was said that everything
was orderly, that everything was quiet, that there was no
riot or passion ; that the witnesses on the part of the prose-
cution were impartially examined, and the witnesses for the
defence in the same manner, the Judge merely dissecting the
evidence and submitting it to the Jury. He admitted all this,