The Sun.
London, England, 1833-06-13 00:00:00

PRISONERS' COUNSEL BILL.

Mr. EWART was sorry to interfere with the measures
of the Noble Lord, but he felt it his duty to proceed with
the Bill for allowing Counsel to prisoners.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said be should be
bound to oppose it, for the subject was of great
importance, and in the present state of the
legal establishments of the country, he was confident it
would be impracticable to be carried into effect.
Mr. EWART said he should not feel justified in post•
poning it.
The Clerk then proceeded to read the orders of the
day. The first was the Transmission of Property (Ire-
land) Bill, which stood for the second reading. It was
postponed. The next was the Prisoners' Counsel Bill.

Mr. EWART moved its second reading.
Mr. MASON seconded it.

Sir C. STEWART thought it was very unusal to move
the second reading of a Bill, without entering into the
details of it, and he wished to hear what the Hon. and
Learned Member had to say in support of it.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said if it was the wish
of the House that this Bill should advance a stage, he
should offer no opposition at present to the second reading.
Sir R. PEEL objected to this Bill in principle, and,
therefore, he should object to the advancement of the
Bill a single step.
Mr. O'CONNELL designated the present practice as al-
together monstrous. It was productive in many
instances of the most frightful injustice, he would
say, in some cases, to the extent of mur-
der, particularly when conviction depended on cir-
cumstantial evidence.—(Hear.) It was the grand
object of an ingenious Counsel to predispose the jury for a
conviction,and thus circumstances immaterial in themselves
appeared before them in fatal magnitude, and the counsel
for the prisoner was prevented from giving those expla-
nations which would have turned the circumstances
very much in favour of, instead of being against,
the prisoner. He hoped the Bill would be allowed to
pass a second reading, and then be referred to a Committee
up stairs, with the view of having some change effected
in the present system during this session.
Mr. STRICKLAND supported the principle of the Bill.
Mr. SHAW deprecated the mania for legislation which
prevailed in the House, especially in the administration
of the laws,
Mr. HARVEY said there were so many important Bills
already before the House, that this could not be properly
discussed this session. Perhaps it had better go before a
Select Committee.
Mr. EWART said be had no objection to referring the
Bill to a Select Committee, after it had been read a second
time.

Mr. SLANEY wished to see some measure adopted to
give prisoners fair play, but he could not agree to this.
Sit ROBERT PEEL suggested that the best course
would be to withdraw the Bill and refer the subject to a
Commit tee.
Sir JAMES SCARLETT concurred in the suggestion,
and deprecated the practice of pissing important measures
at a late hour without discussion.
Mr. PRYME did not consider this to be a fit subject
to refer to a Select Committee.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL concurred in the sug-
gestion made by Sir Robert Peel.
Sir C. STEWART begged to be distinctly understood
as only objecting to the Bill, because he thought it would
he injurious to prisoners.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the reading of the order of the day
Against it
Majority
On our re-admission, we found Sir C. STEWART
addressing the House. He slid his great objection to the
principle of the Bill was for the prisoner's sake. A
prisoner would place his hopes on the speech of
Counsel, and an ingenious Counsel would try to
make such a speech as would, in his opinion, warp
the opinion of the jury. He would call the atten-
tion of the House to the standard of evidence now
prevalent in the several cases of felony, misdemeanor,
and civil causes. In the Court it was well known
that a very slight balance of evidence would turn the
scale, in a misdemeanor a considerable weight
of evidence would carry a verdict, and these
were to cease where Counsel were allowed to address
the jury, while in felony it required that the case should
be extremely clear. If the Bid were allowed to prisoners,
a criminal Court would become a mere arena for speech-
making, and the gravity necessary in a criminal Court
would be lost sight of. That might be an unpopular view
of the case, but it was the duty of that House to do that
which was right, whatever it might be thought of out
of doors at the present moment.--(Hear, hear, hear.)