The Sun.
London, England, 1824-04-07 00:00:00

TRADE WITH PRUSSIA.

Mr. PHILLIPS said he had a question to put to the Chan-
cellar of the Exchequer. At present a duty of 5 per cent. may
be charged on cotton imported in foreign ships, more than was
charged on the same article imported in British ships. The
Prussian Government had in consequence laid on a counteract-
ing duty. He was informed the English Government bad of-
fered to remit the extra duty on goods imported in Prussian
vessels, if Prussia would withdraw her counteracting duty.—
This, he understood, was decided upon, and that the respective
duties were to cease from the 25th of this month. Such being
the case, the question he had to ask was this, why an Order in
1 Council had not appeared on the subject?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER stated it to
be perfectly true that discussions had been going on between
Prussia and this Government relative to the duties imposed re-
spectively on goods imported on foreign ships. lie had every
reason to believe, and indeed was pretty confident, that an ar-
rangement of the nature mentioned by the Honourable Gentle-
man had been agreed upon between the two Governments. The
Honourable Gentleman wished to know why an order in Coun-

cii had not issued on this subject. The agreement, if conclud-
ed, bad not been ratified, and till ratified it was not usual to
take that course.

understood the agreement had been ratified.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER assured the
Honourable Gentleman that the ratification had not yet taken
place.
Mr. NvlTHlTMOßE•presented a petition from certain Car-
pet %I' ravers and Spinners of raw Wool, praying for a reduc-
tion of the duties of woollen yarn.—The petition was ordered
to be printed.
Mr. Secretary PEEL presented a petition from the Western
District of the County of Perth, against the Attornies' Bill.—
Ordcred to lie on the table.

A Message from the Lords announced their Lordships' As.
sent to the Silk Duties Bill without amendment.

OLD BAILEY JURORS.
Mr. GEO. LAMB, before hinging forward the motion
of which he had given notice, had a petition to present from
certain individuals who were in the habit of serving on Juries
at the Old Bailey. They stated, that with every wish earnestly
to perform this duty, they had frequently felt embarrassed,
and it had always sounded harshly in their ears to find the pri-
soner was precluded from addressing the Court by his CounseL
They prayed the House to take this subject into their considera-
tion, and he begged to say he thought the prayer of it well en-
tided to their attention.

The petition was ordered to be printed.
COUNSEL IN CASES OF FELONY.
Mr. GEO. LAMB now rose to move for leave to bring in a
Bill, which, though not entirely a novelty, was not exactly like
that which had been formerly brought in by the Hon. Member
for Galway (Mr. R. Martin), to enable persons accused of cri-
minal offences to emplo7 Counsel to plead for them. He had
taken this subject out of the hands of the Hon. Member for
Galway with his perfect concurrence, and indeed he might say
at his request, but perhaps he ought to apologise for doing so,
as the Hon. Gentleman had such a way of getting Bills through
the House, that perhaps left in his hands the measure would
have • had a better chance of success. The difference between
the Bill brought in by the Hon. Member for Galway, and that
which he wished to introduce was this, the former Bill went to
appoint Counsel tier persons to be tried for felonies as was
done in cases of treason. He (Mr. George Lamb) in his
Bill, did not propose to go so far. He did not propose
that Counsel should be appointed, but merely that Counsel
might be heard for a prisoner charged with a capital offence,
as in the case of a misdemeanour or a civil action. He was
aware that in proposing this he should be opposed by the
long practice of the Courts—by the Attorney-General, and
indeed, he believed, by nearly the whole of that profes-
sion to which he formerly had the honour to belong. His
view of the subject was supported by many legal opinions
beginning with that of Blackstone, and he believed by those
of all learned persons. He would ask any Barrister if he had
ever been accompanied by an unlearned person at a trial,
who had not been disposed to complain of the want of Coun-
sel to speak for the defence ? Besides these opinions, he
had the practice of English Courts on his side in the more
early periods of our Constitution. Mr. Justice Blackstone had
inquired, " On what force of reason is the assistance of Coun-
sel denied to save life, which may be claimed in every petty
case of trespass, and in every civil action ; for, if important in
these, how.mueh more necessary is such aid in cases of felony ?"
From the time of Edward the First, the right of pleading for
the accused had been recognized. The crown, in those titres,

not being the general prosecutor, the ordinary course of pro-
ceeding, where wrong had been sustained, wax by an " appeal
of robbery." This was sanctioned by the Statutes of West-
minster, under which, if the appellant failed to make good his
charge he was liable to be punished with a year's imprison-
ment. The privileges which at those periods were claimed for
the Crown, where the Crown was a party to a prosecution, had
been abandoned by the Crown since the Treason Bills passed,
and were now possessed by the private prosecutor. The Hon.
Gentleman did not wish to propose any violent innovations
which might make our old Lawyers startle in their graves ;
but he wished to fill up the gap which existed between cases of
misdemeanour and high treason, and to take from the subject
prosecutor that privilege, which originally belonged to the
Crown alone. He quoted Lord Coke, Lord Nottingham, and
various legal authorities on this subject, and also the words
used by the Regicide Cooke, on his defence, who had examined
the cause of a prisoner, not being allowed Counsel, to be this :
that the facts proved against bins ought to be so clearly proved
as to render such assistance totally nugatory, and properly to
convict him, so that his mouth should be stopped. He
thought it most unfortunate that it had ever been held " the
Court could be Counsel for the prisoner." This, he main-
tained, the Court could not be. lie wished he could blot out
the praise which had been given to the Judges for acting as
Counsel for prisoners. In numerous ways this had produced
evil consequences. One Judge, in a case for child murder,
though the evidence was quite clear against the accused,
had stopped the case as Counsel for the prisoner, because the
questions had not been put whether the child was male or
female, and this part of the indictment had not been made
out. In another case, when a Judge had put a question, in
order to fill up the chain of evidence, the prisoner had re-
marked--" Aye, aye, my Lord, had you been my counsel,
you would not have asked that question." But Judges had ,
not always professed to be counsel for the prisoner. When
Don Pantaleon Saa, in the reign of Charles the Second, was
brought to trial, and claimed that the Court should act for
him, he was assured " that the Court would be Counsel for him
so far as to see justice done on all sides." No Judge could act
fora prisoner with the same acuteness as Counsel could, how-
ever he might wish to do it. The Judge could onlyere many
know the
case from the depositions laid upon him ; but there w
things which a prisoner could communicate to his Counsel,
which it was important that he should know, and which he
could not convey to a Judge. The distinctions taken between
the situations of Judge and Counsel for the prisoner were fre-
quent. In the case of a person of the name of Udall, in the
reign of Queen Elizabeth, the prisoner haling asked how
many of the Jurors he might challenge, was answered " I can't
tell you, that I sit here as Judge, and not as Counsel. A si-
milar opinion had 'been expressed on the occasion df another
trial in the same reign. He objected altogether to the idea of
considering the Judge as Counsel for•the prisoner. There had
been times, and though it was not to be expected it was possi-
ble that such times would return again, when this safeguard
for humanjife would be found in Jeffries, a Page, or an Ays-
cough. He was aware that the Gentlemen opposite would be
likely to say this is all very well, but what practical evil is
there now to be made the subject of complaint ? He would say
that lie thought it not enough that justice should be impartially
adminstered, but kliat the Public should feel satisfied that it
was so. If he were to comment on cases of modern date he
should be thought to refleclon the Administration of justice in
this country, which, in despite of the defect which he wished to
remedy, commanding, as it ought to command, the admiration
of the world. The cases in which the most marked injustice
had occurred would be found in that collection of legalised r
murders, the State Trials. What was the ground on which I
Counsel were employed at all to defend persons under accusa-
tion; it was done as far as might be to give all parties the
benefit of equal abilities to oppose to those with whom the
charge originated. Were this not allowed how could age, in-
firmity, idiotcy, and insanity defend themselves. In the case
of Lord Lovat, that Nobleman when tailed upon to defend him-
self had said, " is it possible for me to make a defence for my-
self ?—I came to your Lordships' bar at the hazard of my life.
I fainted twice this Morning front having risen so early. Your
Lordships will use your pleasure and dispose of tie as you
think fit, but if I am not allowed the aid of Counsel, I cannot
make a defence." Those words made so much impression
that shortly afterwards the chief manager of that impeachment,
Sir W. Down, moved that House for leave to bring in a Bill
to remedy the evil then complained of; and traitor as Lord
Lova was to his King and country, it had been said in later
times that the proceedings against him were not free from a
touch of barbarity. In the case of a person who was insane,
how affecting was the situation of the party accused when
notin
called upon to prove his own insanity, and to explain how it
acted on him. On the trial of Lord Ferrers, the Noble Pri-
soner complained that he was reduced to the miserable ne-
cessity of tryin., to prove his own want of understanding.__
But he (Mr. (i.'l4amb) would not rely so much on cases of real
confirmed im....r.tty„
Pear 'pc:bile' of make
ing accul
froma l'b'eben7cn.eeg. d;SU"tubC(tlln"llltarcdi been described b in-
capable
Williams, when moving an arrest of judgment and
he
case of Lord Wintoun, whom he described to be not insane
enough to have protection from the laws, and yet not sane
enough for any good purpose. He did not propose to dwell
on the evils experience, in modern times, but if he did he
should refer to the case of that ruffian in Hertfordshire who had
lately occunied the public attention, and who had not only
disgraced Himself, but had also made many others disgrace
themselves by the stupid admiration which had been ex-
pressed on the subject of his conduct at the close of his
career. He would ask those who had watched that man
from the time of his arrest to that of his trial, if they did not
believe that he had been buoyed up, not by the hope of ac-
farrago which he had got together, and thus
quittal perhaps, but by the expectation of cutting a figure by
means of the silly
going out of the world with eclat, furnish a set-off against the
guilt of the murderer in the lustre which would attach to the
orator and the man. This resulted from that mode of proceed-
ing in criminal cases which he wished to correct, and which, in
ma:ty eases, made the criterion of guilt, not the quantity of proof
which might be adduced, but the degrees of ability possessed
by the prisoner. But some objected to a change on account of
the time which the trials would occupy if Counsel were heard
application— line in Pope, which had no
for the accused.
u ngrTyhe
Judges
ewas a
soon the sentence sign."
This was a fallacy; but the second line, if any person of poeti-
cale supplyc of those who were fearful of the
a first, would be capable of easy ap-
p
li
talent
c
a
t
i
o
n
would
,
to the objtions
future length of criminal trials,_
" And wretches hang thatjurvmen may dine."
He had seen many cases go to a Jury, in which had Counsel
been heard he would not say the parties would have been ac-
quitted, hut their conviction would have been more satisfac-
tory to the Public. He had that night presented a petition
from certain persons who were in the habit of serving as Jurors
at the Old Bailey, stating the embarrassment which they some-
times felt on account of such assistance, as he contended it
would be proper to give, being withheld from prisoners who
were on trial. The aid of Counsel was particularly desirable in
a case like that of Patch, where only circumstantial evidence
could be brought against the prisoner. In such cases there
was always a possibility that the prisoner might be innocent,
and it was desirable that that possibility should be diminished
as much as possible, by allowing
Counsel to repel those infer-
ences drawn on the part of the prosecution. He concluded by
moving--" For leave to bring in
a Bill-to all persons prosecut-
ed for felony to defend themselves by Counsel as in cases of
misdemeanor."

Mr. NORTH had always considered the criminal justice of
this country one of its noblest and justest boasts, and that which
he should first point out the admiration of an enlightened
foreigner. To such a person he, would point out the guarded
and cautious manner in which evidence was received against
the prisoner,,and every thing excluded which could not fairly
be urged. Above all, he would point to the temperate and
impartial conduct of the Judge who -presided over the pro-
ceedings. He would then explain- to the foreigner (he need not
do so to the House) that in the first instance the prisoner was
allowed.tbe assistance of Counsel as to matters of law, and fur-
ther by custom, now become sacred, he was allowed by Coun-
sel to examine and cross-examine witnesses. He would refer
to the rule that the Judge was to a certain extent Counsel for
the Prisoner, and in summing up, he was bound to tell the
Jury, if they had any reasonable doubt on the question of guilt
or innocence, it was their duty to give the prisoner the benefit
of that doubt, and he would tell also that the law required una-
nimity, and a verdict could only be returned by a full consent-
inn- Jury. The Hon. Gentleman would give the accused some-
thing more. H would allow him the aid of Counsel to plead
for him. He doubted whether the Honourable Gentleman had
weighed all the consequences. As the lair stood, it was the
practice of the Counsel 'for the prosecution to give a bare
naked detail of the facts to be proved. He was bound by the
strongest obligations, those of honour and mercy, regard for
the opinion of the Bench and of the Jury, to give the most co-
lourless representation of the case. Were Counsel allowed to
plead for the defence, it would be their duty to struggle with
the evidence; and if they could convince the Jury, they would
endeavour to affect them. The consequence of this would be,
that a different course from that now taken would be pursued
by those who conducted the prosecution, and the sober tribunal
of a Court of Justice would become an arena for the contention
of two disputants, the stake for which they struggle being the
life of a man. The Judge would also find it necessary to
change his course, and in nine cases out of ten would become
an advocate, to answer the Counsel for the defence. He
doubted if the accused would profit by such a change, as all
that could be said by a retained Advocate would not have
the same weight with a Jury as the direction of a Judge
now carried with them. Other reasons against the proposed
change might be urged. He did not know that he had ever

seen a Jury who had not one man of a very tender and scrupu-
lous conscience among them. Was it desirable that a practised
and ingenious pleader should apply himself to the doubts of
such a person ? Would justice be better administered if this
were done ? All these things must be considered before he would
consent to alter the law. He had one other argument to which
he thourht it would be impossible for the Hon. Gentleman to
reply—f was this, that the change was not called for by the
voice of the people. The Hon. Gentleman had (looted Black-
stone. He wound stop to inquire whether he had correctly re-
presented his meanings, but he thought he had not, and that the
remarks of Mr. Justice Blackstone applied to the principle of
the law, and not to the practice; but at all events the voice of
the people seemed against Blackstone, and they petitioned for
no change. One petition had that night been presented, but it
was not single petitions usually ought to get any evil corrected.
The people wished an alteration to be made with respect to the
slaves in the West Indies. Was it by a single petition that
they called for the change ? No ; and had they wished for
the change now recommended, their table would have been
loaded with petitions. The absence of these he considered a
decisive proof that no change was desired. It might be wished
for by dillettanti lawyers and philsophers, but the people did
not require it. It was singular, that the cases brought forward
as those in which the aid of Counsel wan most needed, were
cases of High Treason, with regard to which the evil complained
of was already done away. In eases where the probabilities of
guilt or innocence were nearly balanced, the interference of
Counsel was unnecessary, as then the rule of law applied, and
the Jury were found to acquit. The Honourable Gentleman
had referred to a case which had recently occupied much
attention. It
,could not be denied that the prisoner had
displayed great talent. He would have been fortunate in-
deed had he found a Counsel equally competent, but he
would ask, could any appeal have been of avail. He knew-not
then by what inversion of-reason it- could be contended that
this was a case which proved the importance of allowing Coun-
sel to speak for the defence. He thought the English law good,
but would not say that justice might not be equally well ad-
ministered under some other system. Some might be of opi-
nion that thirteen Jurors would be better than twelve, but he
was not favourable to making alterations which were not proved
to be necessary. But the lion. Gentleman might say, I pro-
pose nothing new, but merely that you shall transfer to criminal
prosecutions that practice which is now upheld in another tri-
bunal. If the Hon. Gentleman would engage to go the lenkth
of assimilating the practice of the Criminal Courts in every
respect with civil proceedings he would go along with him.—
But this he was sure he would not do. He would find in some
cases that parties after being' engaged in a Chancery suit for
ten or twenty years, were at last referred to another tribunal,
but the Hon. Gentleman would not therefore contend that 4
was desirable that an inquiry to ascertain the guilt or innocence
of an accused individual should be protracted in like manner.
If there were any real grievance to remedy, he should be as
forward either in devising a remedy, or in joining others for
that purpose as any Gentleman in that House. But this was a
practice of long standing, which had only been discovered as a
grievance within the space of the last year or two. Neither
could it be said to be one in which the people took any share ;
for the Hon. and Learned mover could only produce one peti-
tion on the subject, and that one was from a few gentlemen ac-
customed to sit as Jurors at the Old Bailey. For the reasons
he had stated lie should oppose the motion, and especially be-
cause he thought the remedy proposed would introduce greater
evils than those it was destined to remove, and would be detri-
mental to the administration of justice.—(Hear, hear!)
Sir J. MACKINTOSH complimented the-Hon: and Learn-
ed Member who had just sat down on the ability he had evinced
in the management of the defence lie had endeavoured to make
for the existing forms of the administration of criminal justice.
If the general wisdom and justice' of the criminal law had been
the question, he should desire no better vindicator than the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman; but this was not a question of
general law, but of particular practice. He must say that he
wished the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had carried his imV
ginary dialogue with a foreigner a little farther than he had.—
He had not dealt with this dialogue in the way that the ancient
masters of the drama did, who made the characters they intro-
duced support their respective bona fide with justice and
necessary energy ; but had rather treated it as a case betwixt A and B,
con-
ductt
wherein it was always to be observed that Bweaem
was only
toro
ly in
duced to give an easy and inglorious victory to A.—(A laugh.)
He (Sir J. Mackintosh) must confess himself far beneath the
Hon.
suchand a Learned
case;
butl
Gentlemane really
yn
should
abilityldhave
felt at a loss to
explain the grounds of this anomaly in the law. It was cer-
tainly a maxim of British law, that a man charged with any
crime should have the fullest means of defence, but how came
it in this case, that a man, mistrusting his own ability to de-
fend himself, should not be allowed to call for other assistance ?
The burthen of proof was certainly on the vide of those who
undertook to vindicate this notorious deviation from the prin-
ciples of natural justice. That it was such a deviation, he ap-
pealed for proof to those codes of civilized nations, which re-
corded and deposited the moral feelings and judgments of the
whole human race. He appealed to Scotland and to the United.
States of America, in both of which cases a full and open de-
fence, not a mutilated defence connived at by the law, was al-
lowed. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had referred to '
the practice of the Court of Chancery, into which Court he
begged leave to decline following him, as he did not see what
analogy it could bear to the Trial by Jury. It was an extra.
ordinary fact that Counsel was allowed to prisoners in all cases,
felony only excepted, yet the Hon. and Learned Member had
travelled to the Court of Chancery, totally overlooking that
which lay contiguous to the question under discussion—he
meant the cases of treason and misdemeanor. Yet where
could he the difference between the prisoner in the case of
treason or misdemeanour, and that of the felon, excepting
that in the two cases men of talent and education, capable
of making some defence for themselves were on their trial, and
in the other poor and ignorant individuals who possessed no
means of defence within themselves. He should certainly
say thus much for this part of the law to the inquisitive fo-
reigner—that the moderns were not answerable for it, nor was
it any part of the ancient law. The origin of it, he should say,.
was in the poverty of the persons charged with felony. That this
was the fact was stated by Mr. Sergeant Halls, so long as 150
years ago, at the same time that he declared that disuse had
given it the colour of law. But if his being a Whig Lawyer
should beget suspicions, lie would quote another authority,
which would not be held in the light of a dilletanti. He alluded
to no less a person than Lord Chief Justice Jeffries, who, it
would be adniitted, was no weak authority when found plead-
ing on the side of mercy and indulgence. His words to the
Jury in summing up upon the trial of a Non-conformist, that
it was a hard thing that when Counsel and witnesses upon oath
were allowed to a prisoner under indictment for a two-penny
trespass, the same indulgence was not allowed in a case of trea-
son. As an acute and learned man, which he was obliged to
admit Judge Jeffries to have been, this as a legal opinion was
valuable; for it was said by his biographer. that when not in-
toxicated, nor inflamed by disease, or infuriated by party spirit,
no man better became the bench than this atrocious and dis-
graceful character. This opinion, delivered in that day, would,
he hoped, relieve the Honourable and Learned Gentleman (Mr.
North) from his error that the complaint now made was the
offspring of some dilletanti lawyers and dilletanti philosophers
of the present day. It was a tact, that formerly the witnesses
for a prisoner were not sworn ; the consequence of which was,
that they were not believed, which was a manifest hardship upon
the prisoner. But this had since been done away with, as well
as the refusal of Counsel in cases of Treason and other blots in
our Criminal Law coeval with these, and upon every-reforma-
tion argument in favour of the old law, such as they had heard
that night, were used. The Preamble of the Act of William
and Mary, making an-alteration in the case -of Treason, said,
that, " Whereas it is proper that persons charged with the of-
fence of Treason should have full and equalmeans of defence."
Now if the alteration of the word Treason, to Felony, would
fit this for the Preamble of -his Honourable and Learned
Friend's Bill, that Act was not extorted by tle voice of the peo-
ple, and he believed the Hon. and Learned Gentleman opposite
would not find a single Petition on the subject. He should
be glad to hear what difference could be made out between
the case of treason and the case of felony as regarded this ques-
tion. He joined his Hon. and Learned Friend (Mr. Q. Lamb)
in deprecating the false sympathy which had been shewn on the
subject of the late trial at Hertford—a sympathy in favour of
one of the most execrable ruffians that ever disgraced society:—
(Hear !)—With regard to the defence made on that occasion, he
considered that had there been any doubt whatever in the case,
this defence would have removed it. It was a most fatal defence,
assuming a theatrical appearance, and affiarding to him (Sir J.
Mackintosh) a proof that the mind of the man had early as-
sumed a theatrical character, to which he clung in his last mo-
ments, to the exclusion even of consideration of the danger of
his situation, and which throughout life had imparted that
desperately resolute and wickedly intrepid character to his
mind which made him shrink from no act. With respect to the
arguments of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman against the mo-
tion before the House, he must say that it was the firit time he
had ever heard it maintained that discussion did not facilitate
the investigation of truth. For his part he thought that a con-
tention which elicited the best abilities of Counsel on each side
was the very best mode of enlightening the minds of a Juryi
especially under the direction of a grave and authoritative mode-
rator. He did not distinguish the public from the prisoner in this
question. He claimed the measure upon grounds of general jus-
tice. In a question of this kind one half of mankind was disabled
by ignorance from giving an opinion, and the other half by pre-
judice and habit • for the members of the profession must cer-
tainly be admitted to be tied down to a certain extent to exist-
ing forms and practice. It was for that very reason that he
thought it the duty of every man, when he did distinguish a blot,
to labour to xemove it. it was the payment of a debt which

every man owed not only to his professsion, but to his country.
(Hear, hear ! )
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, he was most ready to
admit with the Hon. and Learned Mover that this was not a
light or trivial question. He was the more disposed to admit
this, because he was of opinion that an alteration in the law of the
nature proposed would be in the extretnest degree injurious;
and which would not tend to elicit truth, nor benefit the pane'
accused. He confessed, at the same time, that he had CO.Ole
to this conclusion with great caution, from the same feel 94
entertained by his Honourable and Learned Friend (Size..ec
Mackintosh) relative to the force of professional habit.
In,
had well considered that every part of the old law which
undergone reformation had found advocates in its day. I3,ur.
with reference to the opinion of Judge Jeffries, he must say we,'
it was of no avail in this question, because it did not refer to
state of the law such as it was now. The opinion of that gse?te_
upright, and Learned Judge, Foster, who had been called the
Alagna Charta of the criminal law of this country, he eh"
uriouse
Very prefer upon this occasion. He stated that the argumente
the side of allowing Counsel to prisoners for felony were veil
plausible; but lie came to a different conclusion from those
who advanced them. Nothing, he considered, could be more
fair, candid, or cool, than the discussion in a Court of Justice'
in a case of life and death. There was no one in that House
who had not witnessed such a scene, and he asked whether any
thing could be better Conducted ? The greatest order ad reel;
larity prevailed ; there was no excitement, nor any thing who If
could at all interfere with a candid and impartial inquiry.,
this then were the case, ought they not to pause before fu.',l
assented to an innovation of the nature now demanded ? 1n
.
all cases where life was involved, the Counsel for the prosece
tion did hot go beyond a cool and naked statement of the cage ;
if he departed from this line, it was well known that the Jutlged
interposed. Now if this iteration were made, they siru
have the whole thing changed into a contest of Coueseli,
with the passions of both sides heated and brought into rio•
The case of a misdemeanour he thought made against the argu-
ment of his Hon. and Learned Friend who introduced in for
that, from its nature, was one in which party feelings were
gaged. The Judge was at present regarded as Counsel fur till-
prisoner. Make this alteration and he must become Counsel
against the prisoner. But did the prisoner benefit by sue, 5
change ? On the contrary ; for it should be rememberee the'v
the gg a speech to the prisoner was giving a reply to
L
prosecutor. Then as to the investigation of truth, he contende4
that the proposed alteration would not a,sist the investigetio"
of truth. Upon general grounds it was probably difficult 10
find an answer to the arguments of the Hon. and Learned Oen"
tleman on the opposite side ; but this was a question of a pree"
tical tendency, and one which ought to be dealt with on or3fi
deal grounds. The effect of the alteration, for instance, elutu"
be important in one respect—he meant the evident tendency, it
would have to the suppression of evidence. The calling lot'
neeses on the part of the defendant entitled the plaintiff o,r,
prosecutor the
par
reply upon the whole case, and it was tail
known at the Bar, and he had often felt it a most painful dot'''.
that it was one of the chief difficulties of Counsel to determine
whether they would call witnesses or not. So much was the,
reply on the whole case dreaded, when a man had a powerful
antagonist, that a vast deal of evidence upon the merits of the
case wax frequently lost. Now what would he the effect of this
in the event of Counsel being granted to prisoners? A geett
deal of matter tending to elucidate the question, would be 105'
from an apprehension of the effect of the talents of an adverse
Counsel. Again, it was well known that wealth was
on the side of the prosecution, so that the elder garid elleneraelr
weighty Counsel would be always engaged against the Pri-
soner. Thus the whole would become a contest of wit and
talent with the weight on the side of the prosecution.glear 1/
He confessed that when this proposition was first made by the
Hon. Member for the County of Galway (Mr. R. Martin) two
or three years ago, he was captivated by the speciousness; of it.
His opinion against it now must not; therefore, be attributed to.
prejudice, but to mature consideration, which had convinced
him that it would be injurious to the administration of justice.;
injurious to the prisoner, and that it would not assist, but retail"
the investigation of truth.—(Hear !)
Dr. LUSHINGTON was decidedly in favour of a reforms,-
tion in the law as it now stood. He knew there was a genera
opinion that the accused would often make a better case were
he enabled to employ Counsel. The Judge never could be
Counsel for the prisoner. At the trial of Patch he perfectly
remembered when the leading Counsel forethe Crown had con-
cluded his speech, hearing it said—" that is one of his hang"
ing speeches." This did not mean that there was any
declamation in it, or any appeal to the passions. It sit,snifieel
that the case had been circumstantially linked together, by
dove-tailing the nice details of 'it in such a manner, as led the
con'
elusion. step by step, in an undeviating line, to the fatal
elusion. Yet such was the situation of the prisoner, that he
was called on to make his own defence on the spur of the
moment, to a speech of such cunning and power. It wt"'
a task which one prisoner in a thousand would be found in-
competent to. He very believed that many prisoners were
ly,
convicted from the want of Counsel, and many acquitted (reel,
the same cause. What could be. More inconsistent than to al-
low
Counsel to a prisoner on trial for an attempt to commit el;
offence wherein the punishment was not capital, and refuse i 1
to him when charged with the actual commission, and when
Cow
Napoleon consequence of a verdict would be death. In the
"'",
Napoleon it was provided that if the Counsel for the prosecution_
replied, the Counsel for the prisoner should have the last word.
He belived the administration of criminal justice in this Coto'
try was conducted on a most niggardly principle. Our JutWe
were most miserably paid, and were not advanced to the
honour of the Bench until it was too late for them to enjoy 'l*
He hoped to see this sooner or later altered. He hoped, je'
deed, that the office of Chief Justice of the- Common pleaa
would be made worth the acceptance of his Hon. and Learned
Friend.—(A laugh.)--It had been urged against the motion
that no petition had been presented to the House complaining
of the present custom. He could not bat be surprised at such
an argument as this. No petition had been presented on the
subject, because the persons who would benefit by the pro-
posed measure were about to be tried immediately. After eu-
logizing the speech of his Hon. and Learned Friend, the Merl'
ber for linaresborough, the Hon. and Learned Member roll"
eluded by declaring his intention to support the motion.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL opposed the motion. The-
Report of the Committee appointed by the House to inquire
into the Criminal Law had not recommended any alteratioet
on this subject. No complaint of the present practice had
been made by any of the writers on our Criminal Law; nor did
he think that the proposed alteration could be defended on prln"
ciple. It would reduce the trials for felony to mere contents
between the advocators. According to the present practice,
no Counsel for a prosecution was allowed to colour the case to
the prieoner's disadvantage in his opening to the Jury. If he.
were to agree to any alteration at all, it would be to equalize
the situation of the Crown and the prisoner, by taking away
'-
the right of Counsel to speak even for the prosecution. SVP'a
points of law occurred, the prisoner was alwas allowed the:
aid of Counsel. No case of an unjust conviction had .been
made out, or even charged ; and the objection to the practic!
as now observed was fbunded only on theory. The case °'
treason was distinguishable from all others, because in those
cases it was possible that the whole weight of the Government.
was against the prisoner, and the wise jealousy of our laws had.
provided against possibility. It was on the best consideration
that he could give the subject that he had determined to op-
pose`the measure. The present practice he thought Was fa-
vourable to prisoners, and he therefore would not consent to--
disturb it.

Mr. DENMAN supported the notion, and was suprised at'
the opposition given to it by his Hon. and Learned Friend who
had just sat down. He well remembered the ahle defence
made by his Hon. and Learned Friend for a prisonex sum'
years ago; a defence which he believed saved the prisoner's
life ; a life which he owed to the exertions of his Counsel. ---
(Mr. Denman alluded, we believe, to the trial of Watson, 1-r,
High Treason, in the year 1817.)—Ilis Honourable a!'"
Learned Friend, therefore, in himself, furnished a principal'
argument in support of the measure. He thought there wr.,
no sound distinction between the case of treason and that, of
felony. The present practice was most inconvenient, because it.
forced a prisoner's counsel to conduct the cross-examination of
the witnesses in a way which assumed the existence of disputed
facts, or was argumentative upon the facts actually in evidence.
It had been said, too, that the case of treason was different,
because the weight of the Crown Advocates was thrown against
the prisoner. He did not believe that this was the reason for
the distinction ; nor did he believe that the fact upon which
it was assumed existed; for he did not believe that the most
ability was always to be found on the side of the Crowri
He was most anxious, however, to bear his testimony, as a wit-
ness, to the necessity of the proposed measure. He offered that
testimony as a Magistrate, often having to try prisoners in cases
of felony, and in that character he declared that he should feel
himself assisted and relieved by hearing Counsel for the pri-
soners in all such cases.—( Hear,
hear !)—The experience of the
present practice had been confidently referred to ; but that of
the measure now proposed had never been tried. The argu-
ments against the measure were generally founded on common-
place assertions, consisting of appeals to the humanity of the
Judges in favour of the prisoners, Just as if they were a body cor-
porate. In support of h is argument, the Hon. and Learned Mem-
ber referred to Elizabeth Canning's case. She accused persons
of felony who could not defend themselves by Counsel, and
convicted them. She was sfterwards herself tried for perjury,
committed on that trial, and convicted, although she was de-
fended by Counsel. It was said, that in all cases the Judges
were Counsel for the prisoners; but it was a libel upon them to
assert this, for it was their duty to ascertain the facts of each
case as dispassionately as possible without making themselves
advocates one way or the other. He most cordially supported
the motion.
Mr. MARTIN (of Galway) supported the motion. Hs re-

itry,

lie

0
the

ose
ore
ice
ise

erred to the ease of the two Perreaus, and contended that
they had been convicted for want of Counsel to plead their
vase. lie denied that the Judges were, in general, Counsel
for the prisoners. To shew this, he referred to Ilellingham's
-ease, in which the Judge had rejected an application to put off
the trial on the ground of the temporary absence of witnesses,
who could prove the prisoner's insanity. He should certainly
vote for the motion.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion
Against it .
Majority - -
-
LAND TAX.
On our re-admission into the Gallery, we found
Mr. MABERLY on his legs, about to bring forward
'ills promised motion respecting the Land Tax. After giving a
• :short history of the tax, from its first imposition, to its being
made perpetual, he proceeded to detail the particulars of the
Redemption Act, which empowered all persons to redeem
the tax, giving a preference, in point of years, to the person
who paid the tax. The tax had been sold to the amount of
500,8001. a year, and remained to the amount of 1,200,0001. a
year, leaving the whole of the expellee of collection amounting
to 80,0001. a year, still a burden on the public. The average
of the sales already made was 6111. for every annual 31.
In 1823, only about 3001. a year of the tax had been sold, while
the expense of the Commissioners was upwards of 2,0001. a
year. ,Such a fact as this was, of itself, sufficient to justify him
in calling for a Committee of Inquiry. It was better to repeal
the law than have it to remain on the Statute Book worse than
a dead letter. The application of the proceeds of these sales
to the reduction of the Unfunded Debt would be highly benefi-
cial, and would enable Government to reduce the 'Three per
Cents. to 2A. This it would be most desirable to accomplish,
with the view to a war, though this was event which he hoped
u far distant. The public were deprived of luxuries and
interest in proportion as the Debt was large or small. He
Could not have any other object than those he professed. He
was convinced he had shewn the House it was a motion of im-
portance. The Hon. Member concluded by moving for the
anpointryaelt of a Select Committee to take into consideration
tat Act it]adine to the purchase of the Land Tax, and report
thereon to the House, with a view of applying the savings to
the Unfunded Debt.
The CHA NCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, when
the Hon. Gentleman last year brought forward the subject,
• he took the liberty of stating that the view taken by the Hon.
Gentleman was not supported by any sound principle, and the
More he thought it, the more he was convinced, that if the
House were to consent to the motion it would be impossible
for a Committee a) concur in the sanguine expectations
of the lion. Gentleman. The measure was one, which had it
been brought forward under any other circumstances than
those on which it was introduced, would have been subject to
objection, because the principle was wrong. It made that
Perpetual which was an annual tax. Although the Land Tax
was redeemed iu one sense, the public income was reduced in
another way, and the plan of the Hon. Gentleman did not
appear likely to produce the magnificent advantages held out.
tie should not object to a Bill brought in by the Iron. Member
containing a specific proposition ; but to suppose any advantage
would be derived from a Committee would be delusive.
Mr. MONCK did not oppose going into a Committee, but
net for the purpose of considering any benefit to be derived
barn the Bill. His object would be to get rid of it altogether.
It was not productive of any redemption, but a mere transfer
44.ettPence.
;Mr. IHTME supported the motion.
BERL Y replied. He was ready to accept the offer
of the Right Hon. Gentleman, but it would be useless to bring
In a Bill unless lie received the assistance of Government. The
ilon. Member then withdrew his motion.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
wished an
Icon. Member (Mr. Kennedy) to postpone his motion relating
to the law for Relief of the Poor in Scotland.
Mr. KENNEDY said he was desirous of obtaining leave to
bring in the Bill that night, in order that the Ilouse might see
what it was. Ile accordingly moved for leave to bring in a Bill
• toregulate the law relating to relief of the Poor in Scotland.
The LORD ADVOCATE considered the Bill which the
Hon. Member intended to introduce one of great importance,
*rid complained that the subject had been brought ibrward at
an improper hour.
Mr. KENNEDY thought the Learned Lord was premature
in his hostility, as not one word had been said in explanation of
theobject of the measure.
After a few observations from Sir G. CLERIC, leave was given
to bring in the bill.
Mr. C. WILSON obtained leave to bring in a bill to amend
SD Act relating to Pauper and Criminal Lunatics.
ALIENS' BILL.
The Aliens' Bill was reported, the Resolutions agreed to,
and, the Bill ordered to be read a third time on Monday.

- - - 80
- - -30