The Sun.
London, England, 1834-06-05 00:00:00

was the source oft' of in the work- I advocate. If this were so, if ti,„ judge was indeed
ing of the poor 1,:. - • • t-w • ~,„ the advocate of the pri,oner-,then he loses his elm-
ratter of Judge in that of Ms-orate. But if impartial
Nothingunti 1 iit wastended
u r .1t;
of ti .a to justice was administered by the Judge beta- ..en the
reduce a great country t.. a number of srnaii o . prosecutor and the prisoner, then the latter must go
Mr. HODGES said he would support the ai:l, as undefended; so that those who urged the objection in
it was to have effect only for one year. If it was not cinestion placed themselves between the' horns of a
passed, a great number of labourers would be thrown dilemma. The argument which had been urged
out of work in many parishes. He would not support against allowing prisoners the assistance of counsel,
it, if he thought it would interfere injuriously with the on the_ ground that counsel would injure their cause,
operation of the bill for the amendment of the poor was absurd ; for if the prisoner had any apprehension
laws. The contrary would be the case. of that he need not allow counsel to defend him. In
An HON. MEMBER supported the bill. The prin- America the counsel for the prosecution had a right
ciples of this bill and the Poor Laws' Amendment Bill to reply. To this he (Mr. Ewart) objected, because it
were totally different, the principle of one being to gave the prosecutor a great advantage over the pri-
compel the farmer to employ the labourers, and of the soner. In France, the custom was to let the counsel for
other to imprison them in a poorhouse. So far from the prisoner have the last word. This was an arrangement
interfering injuriously with the operation of the Poor to which he was also opposed, as he did not think the
Laws' Amendment Bill, it would greatly assist it. ends of justice were likely to be promoted by it. The
Lord ALTHORP said at one time when there was system of criminal jurisprudence in Scotland was free
no effectual measure before the house for the im- from both the objections to which he had alluded.
provement of the poor laws he was ready to support a Their system of defending prisoners was worthy of the
bill of this kind. Such a measure, however, being consideration of the house. It succeeded completely
now under consideration, he thought their whole at- in securing the prisoner a fair trial, but nothing more.
tention should be directed to it. ( Hear, hear.) The The evidence was for and against ; the prisoner's case
principle of the Poor Laws' Amendment Bill was not, was first gone into, and then the court was addressed
as had been said, to imprison paupers, but to place by counsel both for the crown and the prisoner. In
them in a situation in which they would not be so well those cases where the evidence was so strong against the
off as independent labourers. The principle of this prisoner that nothing could stand against it, neither the
bill, on the contrary, was to compel the farmers to counsel for the crown nor the prisoner took up the
employ alike all the labourers of a parish, whether time of the court by any speech. The ends of justice
they were worthy or not, or whether they wanted in all criminal cases in Scotland were, by means of
them or not in the cultivation of the land. One this system, completely answered. They had now
effect of this would be to retain surplus labourers in a had a long experience of the system, and universal
parish, and to prevent them from seeking labour where satisfaction was expressed at the way in which
it might be had. It was in fact a bill to establish a it had been found to work. It was a discredit
maximum in wages. If they passed this bill now, the to England that she had been so long in adopting a
great probability was that a similar bill would be called practice which prevailed in all other civilized coun-
for for the year 1836, and so in succeeding years. tries, with one solitary exception. There could not be
Though it was not proposed that the Poor Laws' a stronger proof of the expediency and justice of taw
Amendment Bill shoulal-come into ope,-ation till June, practice than was furnished by the fact, that America,
1835, and this would terminate in March of the same though she had generally adopted the institutions of
year, still he should oppose it because he considered this country, had found it necessary to the ends of jus-
that it would be a very bad preparation for the Poor tice to improve on our system of trial by jury, by
Laws' Amendment Bill. He admitted that in parishes allowing prisoners the assistance of counsel. These
where this bill was acted upon there was an apparent, were th great ends which would be accomplished by
but only an apparent, diminution of the poor rates, his (Mr. Ewalt's) bill. First, it would defend the
because if the farmers had not employed the labourers unprotected; secondly, it would lead to the discovery
they would have been obliged to support' them as of the truth ; and in the third place, it would promote
paupers. It was objectionable as regarded both the the ends of justice. The hon. gentleman then con-
farmers and the labourers themselves. eluded by moving the second reading of the bill.
Mr. E STCOURT said if this bill, as the noble Mr. M. D. HILL rose to second the motion. The
?ord admitted, was a good one in former years, there law which denied prisoners the right to employ coun-
was no reason why it should be considered a bad one sel was one which materially interfered with the ends
now, when no other remedy was provided for the en- of justice. He himself had known one or two, if not
suing winter. It was not a compulsory bill, for it was more cases, in which verdicts were returned against
left quite optional with the farmers whether they would prisoners which were altogether contrary to the evi-
adopt it or not. The farmers would naturally be dis- dence adduced on the trial. The house should recol-
posed to employ as few labourers as they could ; but lect that if we were right in refusing prisoners the be-
give them a bonus of this kind, and they would extend nefit of counsel, we were so in, opposition to the prac-
their cultivation by giving employment to surplus la- tice of all civilized countries, and also to that of our
bourers. This could not interfere with the operation own colonies.
of the Poor Laws' Amendment Bill, because it would Sir G. STRICKLAND supported the motion.
cease before the other took effect. It was in vain to Mr. PO ULT E R opposed the motion. He consi-
hope that parishes would begin to adopt the regula- dered that the criminal law required no revision, at any
tions of the Poor Laws Bill until the time prescribed. rate with any view to its being made more favourable
He admitted that the principles of this bill were not towards criminals, who had already lost too many fa-
good, but in the present -state of the country it was cilities for escape from justice. He should move that
desirable that it should be adopted as a palliative. the bill be read that day six months.
The many petitions presented in favour of it proved Mr. Sergeant SPAN KIE supported the amend-
that it had been found beneficial in those places where ment, as he considered the state of our criminal law
it was adopted. as not requiring revision. The effect of allowing
Mr. HANDLE Y supported the bill. It was said counsel would be to make the criminal court an arena
to be inconsistent with some of those principles of po- for the display of forensic talent on the part of the ad-
litical economy which he did not profess to understand. vocate, and the prisoner, instead of being benefitted,
If such, however, was the case, it only added one more would be injured.
to those many anomalies in which what was bad in Lord ALTHORP had given this subject much con-
principle was good in practice. sideration, and the result was that he thought some
Mr. STRICKLAND opposed the bill. It was a measure was desirable. (Loud cries of " Hear, hear,
compulsory measure. (No, from an hon. member.) hear.") It appeared to him that the arguments that
It was compulsory because it enabled three-fourths of had been urged against allowing counsel to prisoners
the parishioners to bind the other fourth. So far at in cases of felony, would equally apply against per-
least it was compulsory. It appeared to him that all mitting counsel to defendants in cases of misdemeanor.
the members who had spoken on the measure said that ( Hear, hear.) In the course of his experience and
it was only a palliative, which, if allowed to exist for observation, which had been confined to the more tri-
any length of time, would become mischievous, and fling class of felonies, he had felt that it was exceed-
that it was a measure they only supported because ingly painful to hear counsel address the jury against
things were in the worst possible state. He hoped the the prisoner, who was denied the privilege of being
measure would be pressed to a division, for he was de- heard by counsel in reply. What they had to consider
termined to record his resistance to it. was, not whether the change proposed would prove to
Mr. C URTE IS said that he felt bound to side with the advantage of the prisoner, but whether it was cal-
the hon. gentleman who had just spoken. The bill culated to lead to a fuller and more perfect develop-
was wanted in West Sussex, but in East Sussex it ment of the truth. (Cheers.) They should consider
certainly was not. He agreedin part with what had whether the truth was likely to be in all instances
been said by the hon. member for Essex • but after fairly elicited by a system under which cases could be
what had fallen from the noble lord ( Althorp) he put strongly on the one side, without an answer being
thought it would be better to allow the present and allowed from the opposite side. He would particularly
the lesser measure to be merged in the greater one of instance the cases depending on circumstantial evi-
the Poor Laws' Amendment Bill. dence, in which counsel for the prosecution had, in
Mr. WILK S—lf the larger measure of the noble their address to the jury, to make out the necessary
lord were now in operation he would not press under chain of evidence, and it appeared to him that the
the consideration of the Legislature the bill before the privilege of reply on behalf of the prisoner ought -to
house, although he had no doubt, from evidence front be allowed, in order that an opportunity might be af-
every part of the country, that it had been of much forded of showing in what respect improper inferences
practical utility. The labourers would be better pre- might have been drawn.' ( Hear, hear.) Entertain-
pared for the noble lord's bill if they were kept in con- ing these views, he hoped the house would allow the
stant employment, than they would be if the present bill to go into committee, in order that they might
measure were allowed to continue in operation. there examine it in detail, and see whether the objec-
Lord PALMERSTON thought that the reasons tions that had been urged against it, some of them
adduced by the last hon. member went to prove that being of considerable weight, might not be removed.
the present measure ought to be postponed. Hon. ( Hear, hear. )
members should wait until they saw how the house dis- Mr. O'C ONNE LL said he had heard with great
posed of the greater measure introduced by his noble pleasure the very plain and sensible observations which
colleague. If the house did not agree to the larger the noble lord who had just sat down had addressed in
measure, then would hon. members have a good argu- support of the present measure. The hon. and
ment that the bill before the house should not be done learned sergeant who had preceded him had opposed
away with. He really could not understand how gen- the bill upon an economical consideration of the county
tlemen could oppose the larger measure at the same rates and other matters totally foreign to the spirit of
time that they admitted that the present measure was the question. He had also opposed the allowing of
only a palliative. When bon. gentlemen said that counsel to prisoners on charges of felony, on account
they objected to general principles when based on of the inexperience and indiscretions of young counsel.
large grounds, but not when applied to particular Now he would only say that he (Mr. O'Connell) had
cases, those persons were no less given to the general known many old counsel who were just as indiscreet
principles, and were no less theory-mongers. It was as their juniors. ( Hear and laughter.) The fact
very easy to demonstrate what `would be the effects of was, that the present mode of proceeding in our
the present bill. The tendency of it was to create a criminal courts was anything but the fair and straight-
little legislature in the different parts of the country, forward course which it should be. The criminal code
and to dictate to the farmers how many labourers it itself was too cruel and bloody ; that was a great evil
was necessary for them to employ on their farms.' The on the one hand, which it was then endeavoured to
true principle of legislation ought to be to allow every counteract by throwing all sorts of impediments to
man to employ his capital as he pleased, and to con- prevent the discovery of the truth. Criminals and
duct his own private affairs in the way he thought witnesses were continually cautioned against saying
best. Farmers, if left to themselves, would employ anything that could possibly criminate themselves, and
men as they could, as many as were necessary for their time being even given them to reflect upon what they
true interests ; for farmers, as landlords very well should say, lest they should unwittingly let an unwel-
knew, were very shrewd judges of what was best for come truth escape. The hon. and learned sergeant
their own interests. The present bill would tend to had said that the prosecuting counsel generally con-
perpetuate the abuses of the poor laws, and would fined himself to a calm and circumstantial account of the
compel farmers to employ more men than they wanted. facts of the case, and that the judge was to watch over
Thinking that the present bill was opposed to the the interests of the prisoner. That was a very plausible
greater measure of his noble friend; on which, by the statement indeed, but was it borne out by experience ?
way, erroneous ideas had gone abroad that it would He (Mr. O'Connell) in the course of his practice had
not come into operation before the Ist of March, 1835, seen great mischief and great injustice result from an
for if passed, except one clause, it would come into un- exaggerated statement made by the counsel for the
mediate operation ; and thinking that it would be only prosecution, but he had seen much more harm and
putting difficulties in the way of that more extended hardship result to the unfortunate prisoner from an
measure, he should most certainly oppose it. assumed moderation on the part of his accuser. He
Sir C. BURRELL replied. had heard counsel declaim on opening their case that
The house then divided— " they did not wish to say a word to prejudice the
For the second reading 36 jury against the prisoner ; that unfortunate individual
Against it
Majority against the bill —44 wish to aggravate; .but still that justice must be
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT BILL. done," &c. ; and with such. remarks as these, with
The house then went into committee on this bill. deadening influence, did they most successfully pre-
Lord HO WICK proposed an amendment to one of possess the minds of the jury against the unhappy pri-
the sections, to the effect, that persons returning from soner. In Ireland the crown prosecutor not uneom-
transportation, to which they had been sentenced for
m. only. came down and addresse violent harangues to
offences specified in the 53d Geo. 111., should be liable the jury, calculated to rouse their fears and their pre-
to a sentence of transportation for life, or a term of, judices against the prisoners whom they were called
not less than seven years.
Pease, Francis
After a desultory conversation, in which Sir upon to try. " Gentlemen of the jury," it would be
Lord Howick, Mr. Pryme, Mr." the crown has sent down this special corn-
Vincent,m ss
Wood, the Solicitor-General, Mr. Hume, an al!: ion for your own protection. Will you not
Lloyd took part, the amendment was agreed to ' protect yourselves?" which meant, as he (Mr.
with- O'Connellnderstood it, " Will you hang the prisoners
out a division.
at my request?" ( Hear.) He had some time since
The remaining clauses were then agreed to. The been engaged in a trial at Cork to defend three men,
house resumed, and the report was ordered to be read brothers, who were charged with being implicated in
on Friday next- the murder of Franks. The principal witness was a
PRISONERS' COUNSEL BILL. 1 female. She had been before called on to identify the
Mr. E WART rose to move the second reading of individuals who had been present, and who were active
the Prisoners' Counsel Bill. It was a fact which lie in the murder. The persons arrested were subjected
wished to press on the attention of the house, that to her recognition, amongst them were the three
England stood alone, with one solitary exception in prisoners ; she had known them before, but she passed
the civilized world, in her refusal to allow prisoners them over, and picked out others, who were tried,
the assistance of counsel. In Scotland, France, convicted, and executed. Again the three men, in
Italy, Germany, and the United States of America, company with others, were brought before her, and
prisoners were all defended by counsel, and none of again she failed to identify them. It was then thought
those inconveniences which it was often alleged proper to bring the three men into a room by them-
would be the necessary consequences of adopting selves in order that the attention of the woman might
the practice in this country were found to result from not be diverted ; but on being ushered into their pre-
it. The strongest objection, however, and that which Bence she declared that she had not seen them at the
was most frequently urged against allowing prisoners murder. The men were then discharged. In about
the benefit of counsel, was the quantity of time six months after she changed her mind, and deposed
which the practice would necessarily consume in our to facts against these men. They were arrested at
criminal courts. A distinguished advocate of this their houses, subsequently brought to trial, and she
measure (the late Sir S. Romilly) had completely an- identified them, swearing to them most positively.
swered this objection, when he said that too much time These facts he drew from her at the trial ; many of
could never be consumed where the great ends of them she admitted with considerable reluctance; but
truth and justice were concerned. The next objection havinw exposed them to the court, he left shortly be-
to the measure he proposed was, that it was unneces- fore tte trial was concluded, his firm conviction being
vary, because the judge on the bench was the prisoner's that the men must be acquitted. He had scarcely