The Sun.
London, England, 1841-03-12 00:00:00

pusillanimity of men of keen sensibility, whose infirmity',
whose cowardice we might properly say, prevents theca
from giving pain by strong expressions, either in direct
reproof of those whom they have daily in their pre-
sence, or in protecting from assaults those whom they
may never sec again.
The evil complained of is, it appears to us, irnPli;
cated in the rules that a prisoner shall be protecteo
against being " compelled" to criminate himself, and 1°
the practice of the English courts, that the character of
the prisoner's defence shall not affect the sentence.
The practical rules of law which we should propos°
for the abatement of the evil, in addition to the real ex'
amination of the accused, would be to the following of

feet :
That no man, whether the accused or his agent, shall
be allowed to use false accusations, or do that in Co!lrt
for his defence which he would be punishable for doing
out of Court, for any other purpose than for his defence.
That the counsel shall not assume a witness to b°
untrustworthy, or be allowed to treat him as such, to-
less upon some fact set forth in his brief, which shall be
producible in Court.
That the attorney shall be responsible for the
else of reasonable care in the preparation of instruca
tions, that no groundless or wilfully false4mputations

used in the defence.
It is said we abound in mercy, but we give so mush
of it to the guilty that we have none to spare for we
innocent. Criminal justice has been made to vacillate
in this country between two sets of blind presunslii
tions,—the ancient one, which presumed guilt in 3
who were accused, and the modern one, which Pre-
sumes that all who are accused are innocent, and
even after conviction, overlooks the party injured nes
the tendency of the crime, and bestows unbounn
de
sympathy on the criminal. A treatise sight be
written in illustration of the mischiefs of neriog
on presumptions, when the facts of the partil"
far case are developed and require none. °tirs
English practice, it appears to us, requires t;'
tertium quid of " not proven." The sympathies of 0!
Old Bailey bar are, we must say, on the same sido
their lucre, and with all the inmates of the gaol ;
them, all policemen are what they were designated
Courvoisier's case, bloodhounds,—and witnesses, Pef,
secutors of the innocent. Entire innocence is alwile,:‘,°
peril in the dock, and has no other security than in
aid of counsel. When an extension of summary PunWels';
ments in the case of juvenile delinquents was i')e
proposed, the Old Bailey bar was in arms for the e;
fence of the right of Jury trials, and the legislature vre
scared from much needed and highly beneficial refortn
by their outcries of danger to the innocent.
The very rule for which the English practitioer!
' endeavour to maintain a superstitious awe, the riti:
forbidding the interrogation of the accused in any sti4d
of the procedure, either at what was originally intenlseit
to be his examination, or at the trial,—that rule Will%
shuts the mouth of the guilty for fear he may allinsio
himself, also shuts the mouth of the innocent man Iv-
may be accused, and prevents him giving the circul?;
stantial explanations which he alone could give Pint
answer to any questions put to him. An innece-ds
person could really be in no more dangerous bet,
than in those of a practitioner of the class belonging
the criminal courts, who inveterately act on the hit%
presumption that their client is guilty, and cannot open
his mouth without endangering himself.
In the doubtful case where an accused person we of
f
by his explanations in answer to the interrogatories c
a judicious Magistrate, obtain an early liberation, v,
ing his tongue tied by the English precede' e,
advised, as he always is, by his attorney and c00n,,0
when he has one, not to disclose his defence," but
reserve himself until his trial,"—he is committed a:,
endures a long term of imprisonment, then an ansiec,
trial, in itself a punishment, before he obtains his, Inr
quittal. And here on the favourite legal gretinuisst
the exclusion of testimony, viz., interest, we 111'',1
fairly challenge the competency of the practitioners;t,
the criminal courts to give an opinion on the stibievi-o
If such a question were determined merely by dicta, 0
believe the disinterested practitioners of other end.o
would assent to the reform. An attoraey who reso
the committal of his client for trial, or who favours succre
explanations as may have that effect at the first statrt'e
of the procedure, favours a course in which se..„
five or ten guineas of costs are obtainable,
stead of a prolonged course of several hazard°o,
stages, from which twenty, thirty, fifty, or
dred guineas of emolument are obtained, or n'edo,
according to the means of the accused ; who, .e
„y
pendently of any question of guilt or innocence;
always in this position be termed " a victim of
the
law." The substitution of a pure procedure for
sty
present ccurse in England, which gives to the Di'lde,
per cent. of clear and undoubted cases of guilt' no•
fences on such false assumptions of persecuted IP as
cence, and of malice and dishonesty of witnesseB'nid
were displayed in the defence of Courvoisier, n,
present to the imagination of the practitioner the °PaPp.
rent loss of ninety per cent. of his business—we 6°) •op
parent, because the professional aid of avocets de
would nevertheless be frequently required to sabre fore
tenuating circumstances. Summary convictions
the professional Magistrate would, it must be eonfer"r,Bl
occasion a dire diminution of business and profes°o-ot
emoluments in the superior Courts ; and we might,ijey
it to the gentlemen who practise in them, whether'' Ay
are competent to judge calmly of anything which 113
so powerfully affect them.