The Sun.
London, England, 1833-03-29 00:00:00

461

7,Z-' 0 c 07(_,71y1/
ti
/MI ',.,'":-,,,,,,, • -
~„,, , • 14,- g.--,-...----- ~i ,
C 7 . -4%----1- illT )!
Ireland as he (Mr. O'Connell) v-at., .11,1 tie 11e1,04-,‘..):t......"
1 gecn instances in which the de.ire of t 1,4 4011
‘W ,
k t,
...**.f
~...4
(0.01-',lE'-v ‘..,i.i!-:
~,,, -
• di
•Ar ,P..-
lin court was not certainly to ar quit—(lle Ir)-:**A-• •i-
-...,.......,.:ii
r./..--#49
'l.- ' ~--I,E-1. 1-...... and where a conviction did not displease the gr,a,tt..r
_,,.......,*„
~„
.. • '-'" ---: • ' ''''l ;V:"..i.-----A,
.. ,
' ....
11.4
/ : ..
. r ,; o‘4ll. -1,. "1/- , ,
-, \ rft 1
4. _, . 41number of those who were employed in the adults' isCrmv,.._4',....'j_,
4 -5., iP ff, '
4' ' ' 1 • 6- 4C ,--
. . ...
t s'.._
<r) 74",: ~ ill j ' 1-) ic 0 i
12...L...,.......42''7 \ 74::--':
,tr. 1144. ~
1 friition of justice. But the Hon. Gcntlempr::nhtedes;l1the N____ C.... Y-4/
.4.----
.......„, ...7, .....,_
• 4-__
'AI-: . '‘'/ ve...,:•.............' :111114 ''' Al 0-N
L'l i' 1)

that the employment of counsel would
case of the prisoner—that young counsel would
lie employed, whose inexperience might occasion convic.
ti q. Now he (Mr. O'Connell) was of spiel .n that if a
Counsel hanged I n- client, he would never have another.
it was an evil that would correct itself. lie bail known cases
ot circumstantial evidence where,it th Counsel for the Crown
! ad net made a speech, there would bye been most cer-
tainly an acquittal, there the man in his jude ment
was innocent, and where, it the Counsel had been allowed
ei develop the futility of the arguments on the other
side, there would have been a great prob
nay, even a certainty of an acquittal.—( Hear, hear.)
tie had seen three brothers tried for murder, who, in his
conscience, he believed were innocent. He himself
cress-examined the witnesses, and had he been at
bite! ty to speak upon the evidence, he was ready to
*Le his own existence that the men would have been
acquitted. They were, however, convicted and executed,
—(Hear.) With a fact like this fresh in his memory,
lie could not hut advocate an improvement in the law.
When a man had ail. at stake he wos allowed Counsel to
make two speeches for him, but when his life was at
st Ike he was nit allowed Counsel to make any;
Many persons formerly exclaimed arainst Witnesses
being examined for prisoners. The law in that respect
had been improved, and he trusted that it would yet be
farther improved by taking from the Judge the office now
thrown upon him of coun-el for the accused.
Sir THOMAS FREMANTLE said he would not
oppose the motion of the Hon. Member for Liverpool,
alit begged to guard himself aeainst being supposed to
concur in the principle on which he proceeded.
lie believed that injury would be done to pri-
soners rather than hentfit, by Counsel being employed
to speak for them. What lie would suggest as a coinpro-
mite would be that the prosecutor should be deprived of
the opportunity of snaking an opening speech, which cer-
tainly gave him an unfair advantage over the prisoner.
Mr. EWART made a few observations in reply.
The SOLICITOR GENERAL said that he felt inclined
to support the measure of the Hon. Member for Liverpool,
but at the same time there were some difficulties coos
nested with it, of which he begged to state
few to the House. There could be no doubt that
a priori it might be argued on the right of
every person, whether criminally or civilly arraigned,
to have the assistance of counsel. —(llear, hear, hear)
Suppose a foreigner, a deaf, or a dumb person to be
arraigned, it would clearly be a great hardship
for him not to have the assistance of counsel, but at the
same time he had great difficulty in agreeing th it counsel
should he allowed to speak for a prisoner in every criminal
case. What he would propose would be to try in the first
instance the effect of taking away from the prosecutor
the power of making a speech on opening the case.
The law was certainly most unequal in allow-
ing a speech to be made for the prosecutor, and
not for the prisoner. It might be justly urged also that
there was no reason why it should be so.—(Hear,
hear.) If the case was one of plain fact, and
evidence, the jury would arrive at the proper conclusion
without the assistanc- of counsel ; and if it were a ques-
tion of mixed fact in evidence, it was clearly unfair fur the
prisoner not to be allowed owned to speak upon it,
as well as the prosecutor. What he would suggest
as fair should he, that no speech shoul I be
made for the prosecution, unless one was allotted
to be made on the same trial far the prisoner.
Certain he was, that if the counsel were allowed to speak
in both cases, the number of judges must be doubled,
for it would be otherwise impossible to get through the
assizes within the time to which they were limited.
The whole of that time was now neatly occupied,
and that, although counsel for the prosecution
forbore to snake speeches at any length, I ecause the pi ironer
had not the same advantage. If counsel were allowed to
speak on both sides, there would be a triumph to be obtained
and great injustice might sometimes be committed. It had,
lie knew, been urged that the cross examination, would he
shortened, and discussions in evidence abridged, bathe knew
the prof, limn of the law well, and o as proud of belonging
to it, but he must confess that there would he intet-
inin,ble speeches in the most desperate c gees.
The zeal of counsel would very often urge them
to press lung and wearily upon the July tor an acquit-
tal, and in some cases they might speak alto to esta-
b ish their own reputation for eloquence and knowledge.
In civil cases a Judge could put down coutises hut
bow would it be possible, when a man was pleading for
lie lite of a prisoner, to tell him that he had made the
'ante observations, and that he was only weaving the
iirt- and the jury ? For all these reasons, he was most
anxious that the experiment he had suggested should be
tried. If a counsel were allowed to make a speech for the
prisoner, and the counsel for the prosecution a right of
reply, the latter might forget. in his zeal, the feeling which
was now observed toward, prisoners, and press, p.rhaps
strongly, on points that might not in themselves be other-
wise of sufficient weight to obtain a convictlon. lie hail
no disposition to tempt a premature discussion on the
objects of the Bill, upon watch he should reset ve himself
for its subsequent stages ; but he could not refrain trains
throwing out these hint, to the Hon. Member ;or Liver-
pool, before the Bill was brought into the House. And
he thought that all the necessity of the case would be met
if that lion. Member were to confine the operation of the
Bill to taking away the right of counsd being heard for
the prosecution, unless the same privilege were granted in
such cases to the prisoner.
Mr. AGLIONBY believed that, in theory, the propo •
sition of the Hon. Member for Liverpool might be taken
as good ; but he (Mr. A ) was ,qu dly convinced that in
practice it would not be found to succeed. lie feared that
it would be turn, d into a trial of skill between c .unsel, by
which the interests, if so taken, of the prosecution would
be the most likely to be sustained by tne ri tent ion of our
most talented or practised counsel. Whilst lie saw this,
he would admit that, according to the present practice, it
would appear that prisoners were deprived of a privilege
exercised fur the prosecution.
Mr. EWART moved for leave to bring in a Bill to re-
move the assizes from Lancaster to Liverpool and Man-
chester. He understood it was not the intention of his
n. Friends from the north to offer any opposition to
this Bill, and, therefore, be would not occupy the time
of the House by entering into any discussions on it. He
trusted no objection would be raised to it from any other
uarter. He had a petition to present which he would
present at the same time, signed by upwards of 5,000
highly respectable merchants and others, principally [w-
hinging to the Guardian Society established in Liverpool,
praying that the Bill might pass.
The petition was ordered to be laid on the table, and
the motion having been seconded,
The SOLICITOR-G2.'NERAL made a few observa-
tions upon the notice to bring in the Bill, which were not
distinctly beard, but we collected that he would not offer
any opposition to the Bill. He was of opinion that it
would he much better to go back to the old system, and
invest the Crown with the power, on the representation
of the Judges, of making such altetations in the aesize
towns as were deemed necessary.
Lord SANDON supported the prornsitiasi for he knew
that a great deal of dissatisfaction prevailed among the
constituency which he represented at being dragged 54.
miles from their houses either as witnesses, grind jurors,
or petty jurors, to a part of the county in which but little
of the assize business originated. He had himself a peti-
tion upon this subject, signed by many hundreds of his
constituents, and he hoped to see the alteration soup ef-
fected.

PIKE ID.)

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, MABCZ 28.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at tour o'clock, when
the House proceeded to ballot fir two Committees to try
the merits of petitions against the returns for the boroughs
of Portallington and Carrielitmus. The yallery in con.
stquence w is not opened until live o'clock.
IMPROVEMENTS IN CHELTENHAM.

On the tnotio❑ of Mr. CRAVEN BERKELEY, the
Bill for the better sewerage, drainage, lighting, and
watching the town of Cheltenham, was read a third
time, and pa,sed.
POR ('ARLINGTON ELECTION.

Mr. Dyson appeared at the bar with the following
list of Members who had been balloted to sit as the Corn-
tiiitt,e on the Portarlington election :
Lord Grinistone, Sir W. Molesworth, C. Stuart, J.
Rvle, J. P.,ulter, Lord Milton, Hon. A. H. Moreton, Sir
A. Bulk,ley, T. Chaplin, J. Wefuss, and J. H. Vivian.
Having te.n sworn, the Committee retired.
Mr. ESI COURT presented petitions from the Chan-
celor, Masters, and Scholars of the University of Ox-
ford, for the better observance of the Sabbath ;
from a township in the county of York, in favour
of the Ten Hours Factory Bill ; from the mer-
chants, manufacturers, and shipowners of Dundee, com-
plaining that so n uch of the time of the House was
occupied with the Irish Coercive Bill, and praying
that it may be speedily passed into a law; and
fro.) the trustees of the market in the borough of
Southwark, against the Bill for establishing a new mar-
ket in the parish of Sr. George, in that borough. The
latter petition was referred to the Committee upon the St.
George's Market Bill.
Sir W. INGILBY presented a variety of petitions
from different parts of the county of Lincoln against the
tithe system—against the Irish Coercive Bill—for the
repealao)fattlieassiessed taxes—for
abolitiones—fo o.f slavery.rtihbetie
better observance of
the Sabbath, and for

HOLDING OF OFFICES BY MEMBERS OF
PARLIAMENT.

Mr. HUME would take the present opportunity of
calling the attention of the House to a circumstance
which had caused ci:nsiderahle delay. A Committee la id
liven appointed to obtain returns from Mem, ers of that
House of the offices which they held —(Hear, hear.)
That Committee had now been sitting three weeks,
Anil they could not get the returns. There were now 150
defaulters, and he hoped that his now taking notice of it
would induce them to come forward, otherwise the Com-
mittee would be obliged to report them to the House, and
the Serg,ant-at.Artus would be sent after them. He
knew of no other way to get at the information ;
but he trusted there would be Ito occasion to resort to such
a step. He would now move to add several Members
(who, names we could not hear) to the Committee.—
Agreed to.

Mr. WASON concurred in what bad fallen from the
Noble Lord, and he was of opinion that an Act .hould
pass, vesting the power in the King of changing the pl,.ees
for bolding the assizes in. He himself had had aBiI to
I)ochangepostpone
thee it
sixassizes
iin eo
s. H
f a county,
eat,ic once give
butuggivh
te Learned laonueocthhi acAsde
iobember (nultti
hgge
eneh d
intention
tsi
otton
of bt goo.
~e taken in hand, not by a private Member, but by some
Member of the Government, when it would be sure to
p So-
licitor-General) Gnign e
ih ,:a p,
a) e d
Bt wouldil;. e
Hon.t n
Sir R. PEEL was glad to bear such sentiments as had
been uttered upon this subject, for he was of opinion that
if the power of changing any assize town were vested in
the Privy Council, i would be much better exerei-ed.

Lord ALT HORP thought the suggestion of the Hon.
Member well worthy of consideration. He would not
pledge himself to adopt it, but he trusted the Hon. Ment-
oer would postpone his motion, in order to afford an op-
portunity for considering the subject.
Sir M. W. RIDLEY thought the Bill so objectionable
that it ought to he withdrawn altogether.
Mr. P. THOMSON considered that whatever might
be the opinion ot the House as to the
the i Co
vy uncil
having the power intended to be given by proposed
Bill, the Hon. Member ought to have the liberty of bring.
ing it in.
Mr. BARING thought that if it was the opinion of
the House that the p..wer should be delegated to the
Crown and Privy Council, it ought not to be teased with
objects of this description.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL explained.

Lord ALTHORP suggested to thi lion. and Lterned