The Sun.
London, England, 1835-07-09 00:00:00

DAY AT ONE O'COLCK.

New 5 per Cent —
India 5t0ck......... ...............
Ditto Bonds 12 9 pm.
South Sca Stock lOl%
Old Annuities
New Ditto 89%
3 per Cent. Annuities, 1151 EBI4
Exch. Bills, .£l,OOO 31 :32 29 pm.
1 Ditto 500 34 30 pm.
Ditto Small
Ditto Commercial — pm.
Ditto Advertised ......
1 Bank Stock for Account --
1 India Stock for Account --
i Consols for Account 92% %

THIS DAY AT ONE O'CLOCK.
Peruvian Bonds
Ditto Account
Portuguese Bonds 9l
Ditto Account
Ditto New Bond. 12 34 "44
Ditto Account 512 *,;
Prussian Bonds

Dittu Bonds,lS2?
Russian Bonds, 182

Ditto_Accguilt
Ditto Metallic
Spanish Bonds 521 2*
Ditto Account 5,2 - 14 5011
Ditto Bonds, 1834 ...48% i 5 7% 8

Ditto Account
French, 5 per cent. —f. —c
4 per cent. —f. —c.
...... - •f. —c,

---- 3 per cent.
Exchange —f. —c.
Dutch, 2!4 per cent ... •• 53%
Ditto Account
Ditto, 5 per cent.... 101%
Ditto Account —

PRICES OF SHARES THIS DAY AT ONE O'CL OCK.
Paid. Per Share
Anglo Mexican Mining Company (iss. at 5!. pm.) 100 6
Brazilian Imperial Mining Co. (Issued at 5!. pm ) 20 36 39
Ditto Macanbas Cocaes 2O 19
Redmoor Consolidated Mini g Company 2 3% 4
Real del Monte Missing Co., Registered 63/. 10s. 6d.

Ditto Unregistered —
London and Greenwich Railway Company l3
Provincial Bank of Ireland 23

Mil I BELGIAN FUNDS.—BRUSSELS, Jurs 7
Actual Debt, 2!4 per Cent ,
Rathschild's Loan, Five per Cent lOO%
Loan of City, IRI Four per Cent. 9834
Society of Commerce, Four and a Half per Cent. 117 V
Bank of Belgium, Five per Cen.
--Brussels Papers, July S.

7 DUTCH FUNDS--ANISTERDAM, 311 LY 7.
Money. Bills.
Actual Debt, 24, per Cent.
-- -•- 55% 56
94,,/q 95
......

A rnort Syndic, 4-l; per cent
Ditto, ditto, 3Y, per cent 'PA 80
Loan (1S30) 5 per cent.
Ditto (1132 and 1833) 5 per cent.
Commercial Company, 4 per cent lOB It 8%
New ditto —
Exchange on London, One month l2 22,.
Two months
SPANISH FUNDS.
Cortes at Amsterdam, 5 per Cent 41% to 42►,{
Ditto, ditto, 3 per Cent 26 to 2714
Loan, London (1832; 5 per Cent.
Cortes Coupons
Cortes Deferred Debt
Dutch Papers, July 8.

lilGll HATER AT LONDON BRIDGE TO-MORROW.
Mnrnine 12 minutes after 2. I Erenine 39 minutes after 2

HAMBURG, MAY 1835.
"'EINE BROTHERS, CONTRACTORS for
the STATE of HAMBURG'S GREAT LOTTERIES.
being requested to publish the Scheme of the approaching Sixty-
sixth Lottery in the English Papers, and to have Tickets on Sale,
with Agents in England, beg to state that neither can be done,
because it is illegal for the English Newspapers to publish Foreign
Lottery Schemes, and for aty Agents in England to sell Foreign
Lottery Tickets. On the other hand, they beg to state, as it is
NOT illegal for any person in England to PURCHASE Foreign
Lottery Tickets, that any person desirous to purchase, on addressing
them by mail, will receive a full Scheme, and any desirable infor-
mation on the subject (Gratis), by return of post.

ON APPROACH of 12th AUGUST,
We beg to remind the Public that
NO TIME IS TO BE LOST
In giving Orders, if they are desired to meet attention, before
A rtISE IN PRICE.
Orders, accompanied by 101. notes, directed to us, without delay,
may still be attended to at 81.. and 2/. for the balance will be re-
turned on executing the order, by return of post.
HEINE BROTHERS.
Hamburg, 23d June, 1885.
P.S. Direct, HEINE BROTHERS, in HAMBURG.

The publication of THE SUN NEWSPAPER commenced this day
at 31 minutes past .3 o'clock.

•
-c-)71
-...-_'.. -4 ,
4..,--.: ,-.,..
,
~,,, •••0 , ....i- i,..._-_-.
,;*„
&, ''• • X. ' . ,Z; .:1 -IN•
. • -‘,.'9‘.:
t•-•.... - 4't ' •-•il I t .- ,
t :-.....' -r--•
, „„, ' ' . -,-- ......!„.4.0." • ••••,,,Z i. 4••

(Zi-1)-> ,

LONDON,
THURSDAY EVENING, JULY 9, 1835.

S'r R. MUSGRAVE'S motion for the second real- I
ing of his bill for relieving the Poor in Ireland, gave
rise, to an animated and interesting debate last night in
the House of Commons. The impression which a
careful perusal of the speeches delivered on this occa-
sion has left on our minds is, that legislation on this
subject would at present be premature. Net that the
destitute state of the Irish Poor does not demand
the speedy interposition of a Christian Legislature to
protect them from the cemiscgin of the inhuman
neglect of their natural protectors, but that further in-
quiry is necessary before such a measure can be frame-ele
as shall prove an adequate remedy for the evils com-
plained of. We are led to this conclusion, from ob-
serving that while every Hon. Member—with one excep-
tion—who addresed the House on this most important
of all questions admits the necessity of introducing
into Ireland some system of poor laws, no two of them
are agreed even as to the ouilines of the plan. To
introduce into a country, situated as Ireland is, says
Sir P. MUSGRAVE, anything like the Poor Law
Amendment Net is a project too wild to be seriously
contemplated by any one at all acquainted with
the state of that portion of the empire. He therefore
proposes to include in his plan nothing beyond a par-
tial provision for the aged, orphans under fourteen
years of age, and all who are sick, or afflicted with
incurable bodily infirmities. Mr. G. F. YOUNG thinks
that all that is necessary, is to apply the statute of
ELIZABETH to Ireland, when up jumps Mr. O'Coer-
INT ELL, and tells him he knows nothing about the matter,
for that the so•much-vaunted statute of ELIZABETH
compelled the providing of work or food for the able-
bodied poor, a defect which, in his opinion, gave rise
to the many abuses which had crept into the adminis-
tration of the Act, and rendered it totally unfit to be
adopted in Ireland, where it would greatly increase the
existing evils. While such conflicting opinions are
entertained as to the nature and extent of the remedy
by those who have to apply it, it seems the safest
and wisest course to wait until the evidence collected
by the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the State
of the Irish poor has been carefully examined. It is,
in fact, only by such an examination that Hon. Mem-
bers can be properly prepared to pass a legislative
measure, which, if not founded on an accurate know-
ledge of the peculiar circumstances of Ireland, may
be productive of great mischief, and which, it must
be remembered, when once passed, cannot be recalled.
Anxious, therefore, as we are for the introduction of
Poor Laws into Ireland, and convinced, as we are,
that until some compulsory provision is made for the
poor, neither peace nor prosperity will visit that portion
of the kingdom, we think it better that all legislation
on the subject should be suspended until the informa-
tion already collected, and still collecting by the Com-
missioners, shall have enabled the Government to pre-
pare, and the Legislature to pass, such a measure as
shall be the best calculated to effect the great object
in view, without entailing upon Ireland the curse of
such a pauper system as that which has so long
afflicted England. _ _

A curious discussion took place last night in the
House of Commons on the subject of a motion made
by Mr. DIVETT, to the effect, that an Amendment of
the Corporation Reform Bill, of which notice had been
given by the Hon. Member for St. Ives, be expunged
from the notice book. The Amendment which gave
rise to this discussion is as follows :—" That all pri-
soners in Newgate, and the other gaols in England
and Wales, although possessing no other qualification,
be, upon the principle of the Bill, entitled, indiscri-
minately to an equal participation in all the franchises,
as well magisterial as elective, thereby created ; and
that, to obviate all uncertainty or doubt of the benevo-

lent intention of the Bill, and the happy tendency
thereof, being, in effect to render all the higher ranks
.., of his Majesty's loyal and respectable subjects subordi-
nate to the lowest, without regard to property or cha.
racter, a clause be introduced, in accordance with the
same principle, expressly enacting to that effect ; and

FRENCH FUN DS —Ryas, JULY '7.
Five per Cents., 1090 109 f. 10c. 15c. 20c.
Three per Cents.. 79f. 35c. 40c. 50c.
Bank Actions, 2,005 f. 2,010 f.
Rente de Naples, 97f. 40c. 35c. 30c.
Roman Five per Cents., 101.
Route d'Espagne, Five per Cents., 40.
Rente d'Espagne, Three per Cents., 2851.
Rente Perpet. d'Espagne, Five per Cent., 41% %lA.
Belgian Loan, Five per Cents, 101%.
Portuguese Loan, Five per Cents., 92% 93 93% 94.
Ditto, Three per Centa, 6:3 6351 64.
Dutch Two and a Half per Cents., 56f. 50e.
Hay tian Loan, 390 f.
EXCDANGE ON LONDON.
One month, paper,—f.—c.; money, 25f. 42.4 e.
Three months, paper, 25f. 3234 c. ; money, 25t: 30c.
rs Aulheltique.

that it may for ever thereafter be well understood,
that the whole population in the corporate jurisdic-
tions arc, in all other relations of life, placed upon a
footing of perfect equality, agreeably to the natural
rights of man ; and also, a clause to provide. a suit-
able retreat for the gentry residing within these juris-
dictions, and who, with a mind and feelings becoming
their station, may seek an escape for themselves from
the scene of such a revolutionary infliction." Our
first impression, on reading this amendment, which is,
of course, intended to be irresistibly droll, was, that
the perpetrator was an Alderman—for such men are
dull by prescriptive right—and on instituting inquiries
we find that we have not been mistaken. The Gen-
tleman who pleads guilty to it, is no less a personage
than Mr. HALSE, Alderman of the Borough of St.
Ives—who has thereby established the fact, that
though a man may be a " Capital Burgess," it
by no means , follows that he should be a
capital joker. Mr. HALSE'S amendment is
just the sort of ponderous jest that an elephant
would crack, were he ever so far to belie his nature,
as to affect the facetious. It is long, drowsy, heavy,
and pointless. But what else was to be expected from
an Alderman who is fast verging on his grand climacte-
ric? YouNG has well observed, " a fool at forty is a fool
indeed." How great then must be a fool at sixty-five !
There is no achievement in the way of buffoonery,
that may not reasonably be expected from a wag at
that age. We take great credit to ourselves for having
been the first to discover that the HALSEAN amend-
ment was meant to be facetious. The fact had
escaped the penetration of our contemporaries ; and
no wonder, for who could ever have expected
to find aught in the shape of a jest fall
from the pen of an Alderman ? The circumstance
is as astounding as would be a Treatise on the Art
of Dancing, by the Bishop of EXETER I It is a
thousand pities that Mr. HALSE, like the early Greek
painters, did not write under his amendment, " This is
a joke," for then there could have been no possibility
of misapprehension on the subject ; and our contem-
porary, the Morning Post, would have been prepared
to applaud it to the skies, as a sally worthy of a SIB-
THORP in his most sportive and airy moments, instead
of gravely shaking his head at it, as if doubtful whe-
ther to call it serious or mirthful 1 We need scarcely
add, that the amendment was ordered to be expunged
from the notice-book ; which is a pity, for it is a phe-
nomenon worthy of preservation, being, we verily
believe, the first, as it will most probably be the last,
joke, ever cracked by an Alderman. We have still
hopes, however—if only for the curiosity of the thing—
that a copy of it will be taken, and deposited among
the archives of the British Museum.

Lisbon Papers to the 25th ult. have been received.
All was then tranquil in Portugal. The great abilities
of M. MENDIZABAL, as Finance Minister, were the
subject of very general commendation, and it is expected
that he will realize all that was expected from the
financial talents of M. CARyALHO. The marriage of
the QUEEN with the Duke of NEMOURS is still talked
of, and it is believed that her MAJESTY is secretly re-
solved upon it, although she is now aware that prudence
is necessary even to a personage in her exalted station.

The whole of the Paris Papers of Tuesday have
been received, together with private intelligence from
Bayonne and Madrid. The Mo..iiteur contains a
loyal Ordonnance, dated the 3d inst., containing the
four following important articles relative to the expor-
tation of provisions, &c. across the Pyreiiees : •
" Art. 1. No arms of any description, lead, sulphur,
saltpetre, gunpowder, warlike projectiles, gun-flints, or
military clothing or equipments, can be sent over the
land frontier of the department of the Basses Pyr6neeii
without the express authorisation of the Minister of the
Interior.

" Art. 2. The transport of corn and flour, liquors,
salted meat and fish, and provisions of all kinds, horses,
and cattle, articles fit for making military clothing and
equipments, remains permitted at all such points of the
same frontier, the adjoining positions of which on the
Spanish territory aro occupied by the troops of Queen
Isabella. It is interdicted at all, other points.
" Art. 3. The articles deemed fit for making mili-
tary clothing and equipments are white or dyed linen
cloths of at least eight threads ; white or dyed un-
bleached linen cloths of from eight to eleven threads ;
woollen cloths worth at least 10f. a metre ; leather fit
for making boots and shoes ; articles of saddlery and
other military furniture ; and finally, leather fit for
making belts, ac.
" Art. 4. Merchants and dealers retain the right of
transporting through the Custom-houses, which are
opened to them by the law, such linen and woollen
cloths, leather, and skins, as do not come within the
above category, and generally all such articles as are.
not mentioned in this present ordonnance."
The domestic intelligence contained in the Paris
Journals is not important. The Constitutionnel states
that the plan of declaring the coast of Spain under
blockade has been abandoned, by the mutual consent
of France and England, as otherwise hostilities on the
part anther maritime powers might be provoked ; but
that the vessels stationed on the Spanish coast shall
prevent any ship from touching upon it whose appear-
ance may excite suspicion.

The appointment of Lord DURHAM, as British
Ambassador to the Court of Russia, has met with the
cordial approbation of the French Cabinet. TRIERS
and GUIZOT are both in high glee, and it is whis-
pered that even Louis PHILIPPE has signified that he
is no longer apprehensive of the power of Russia. The
chief dependence of the French Government is
placed upon the downright English straightforwardness,
and manly firmness of Loid DURHAM. It is ex-
pected that he will not suffer himself to be mocked and
insulted by diplomatic subtleties, and that he will not
permit the smallest inroad to be made on the spirit of
any existing treaty, or any invasion of a public right
to take place, without denouncing the treachery of the
Imperial Court. In our opinion, Lord DURHAM is one
of the fittest persons that could be selected for the Rus-
sian Embassy. His principles, his habits of thought
and action, his feelings, even his very temper render
him alike indifferent to the favours or the frowns of
the CZAR. He knows enough of Courts to despise
their empty pageantries, and their hollow professions of
regard ; and he knows too that diplomatic courtesies
are most resorted to, where the object is to conceal a
fraud, or over-reach an ally.
The report of the death of ZUMALACARREGUI
reached Madrid on the 29th ult. It was received with
rejoicing by the inhabitants.

BOURSE, THREE O'CLOCK.—The rise continues in all secu-
rities. The 3 per Cents. opened at 79f. 35c., and gradually
rose to 79f. 60c., with a firm market. The Spanish funds go
on improving, and are in demand.
QUARTER TO FOUR. - Five per Cents., 1091. 35c. ;
Three per Cents., 79f. 70c. ; Five per Cents. Spanish, 411;
Three per Cents., Spanish, 28i ; Cortes, 40; Coupons, 22;
Guebhards, —; Differes, 17i ; New Loan, 50+; Definitives,
47 ; Passives, 15 ; Ducats, 97 50; Romans, 101; Belgians,
1011 ; Pedros, 94; Miguels, .—; Dutch, 56 10; Haytian,
—f. ; Brabant Bank, 14i.

THIS DAY, THURSDAY, JULY 9.

HO USE OF COMMONS•

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY, JULY 9, 1835.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at twelve o'clock, but in con-
sequence of the door leading to the Reporters' gallery not
having been opened (the key was mislaid) we could not get
into the gallery till twenty minutes past twelve. On our en-
trance we found that the third reading of the Manure Toll
Exemption Bill had been moved by Mr. G. Byng.
Mr. CHARLTON was on his legs, so that we only heard
the conclusion of his observations. He said that as the Hon.
Member for Knaresborough (Mr. Richards) was not present
to move the amendment of which he had given notice, he pre-
sumed that the Bill would pass without opposition. He would
however take the liberty of giving notice, that in the next
Session, if he should have the honour of a seat in that House,
he would bring its a Bill to render lime exempt from toll when
used as manure.

Captain PEC HE LL had very great pleasure in supporting
this Bill, and he hoped it would pass, for he considered that
this was the first boon that had been granted to the agricultu-
ral classes.

Major BEAUCLERK most cordially concurred in the
object of this Bill, but he wished to ask whether, under the
Bill, chalk, when used for agricultural purposes, was to be
considered as manure ?

Mr. G. BYNG—When chalk was bona fide used for ma-
nure, it would be exempt from the payment of toll ; but if it
were afterwards used for other than agricultural purposes, the
parties so using it would be liable to information.
Sir J. Y. BULLER wished to know whether this being a
general Act, it would supersede all local Acts. He wished
to know whether on these roads (and two Bills had passed
this Session) on which the trustees had exempted lime from
the payment of toll, this Bill would make lime payable on such
roads ?

Mr. BYNG intended to move an amendment, the object of
which would be not to interfere with local Acts, so as to
protect from the payment of toll those things which were
now liable.

Sir J. BULLER—That would not meet the case to which
he had alluded; he alluded to local trusts which allowed ex-
emption of toll to lime. He wished to know whether, under
this general Act, those trustees would still continue to exempt
lime from the payment of toll ?
An Hon. MEMBER could not imagine on what principle lime
was exempted, and chalk, when used for agricultural purposes,
was allowed.

Mr. CRIPPS—The House should recollect that large
sums of money were required to keep the roads in repair, and
the trustees could not afford to keep the roads in proper re-
pair if they were not entitled to toll upon lime. If the lime
was used for agricultural purposes, it would be exempt, and
this, he apprehended, would meet the objection of the Hon.
Member.

The Bill was then read a third time.
Mr. G. BYNG then rose to move the amendment to which
he referred, viz.;a clause by way of rider to continue the pay-
ment of tolls on roads where they were at present established
by virtue of local acts.
Mr. LAWSON, in the absence of Mr. Richards, moved
as an amendment to leave out the words in the first clause,
" save and except lime," for the purpose of adding the fol-
lowing words :—" And lime for agricultural purposes, except
on such roads as shall appear to have been formed specially
for the purpose of conveying lime."
Mr. WILLIAMS thought the duty on lime used for agri-
cultural purposes ought to be taken off.
Mr. W. PATTEN thought the difficulty would be to
ascertain the fact, whether the .lime was intended to be used

for agricultural purposes.
Mr. Hodges, Mr. Brotherton, Sir E. Wilmot, and Mr. G.
Heathcote made some few observations, which were totally in-
audible in the gallery.
Mr. PEASE opposed the amendment.
would be injurious rather than otherwise.
Mr. E. BULLER, as the amendment referred only to
lime used for the purposes of manure, would oppose it, as
he thought it would be impossible to draw the distinction.
He was willing to extend every assistance possible to the
agricultural interest in its present depressed state, but 'he
feared it would he impossible to bring the clause into opera-
tion, as it would be difficult to say what roads were exclu-
sively formed for the conveyance of lime. On these grounds
he should feel himself obliged to oppose it.
Mr. HARDY begged to ask the Hon. Member for Middle-
sex if his object was not to prevent lime being twice charged
with toll ?
Sir JOHN BYNG—Yes.
Mr. HARDY thought it was quite clear, that as these
articles were put copulatively in the clause, it would be
optional with the toll-keeper to charge for them, unless the
vehicle contained all the articles enumerated. As it hvd

He thought it

been stated that Government intended to bring in a Bill
upon this subject shortly, he would suggest that the Hon.
11i6mber had better abandon his Bill, as it could not do

much good between that period and the next Session.
MAU Mr. FOX L E admitted that the Government did
intend introducing a measure upon the subject of turnpike
roads, but he believed they did not wish to interfere with
the arrangement of any private trusts.
LAWSON would be sorry, under the circumstances,
to press his amendment, and would therefore, with the leave
of the House, withdraw it.
Mr. HA I.Ft) RD would foal it his duty to persevere in the
amendment of which he had given notice with respect to
draining tiles. Ho was the more encouraged to persevere in
it, because he believed it would tend to the relief of the
agricultural interests, and the object of the present Bill was to
.assist them. He would therefore move that in the first clause,
after the words " manure for land," the words, " or draining
tiles, for agricultural purposes," be introduced.
_ .

Mr. HUME denied that this was a Bill for the relief of
the agricultural interests; but it was intended to remedy de-
fects "in the existing laws." Generally speaking, the tiles
were given by the proprietor, and the tenant had only to
place them, and could have no objection to pay toll for them.
He hoped the Hon. Member would not persevere in his amend-
ment, and thereby endanger the Bill.
Major BBAU CL E 8, considering the difficulty there
would be in bringing in a distinct Bill upon the subject,
thought it would be as well to take in this clause, and
thereby give that relief to the farmers which they required.
Mr. W. DUNCOMBE differed with the lion. Member for
Middlesex (Mr. Hume), when he stated that this Bill was not
intended for the relief of the agricultural clauses ; and he
appealed to the Hon. Member, whom he would distinguish
as the agricultural Member for Middlesex, if that was not the
case. He thought the measure at present was incomplete, and
that there should also be a clause exempting bones or bone-
dust from toll.---(Hear.)
Captain PE CHE LL was a great maker and consumer of
tiles on his own estate, and was well aware that they were
almost in every case given by the landlord. Ile did not think
it was expedient to pass the amendment now, as its only
effect would be to defeat the Bill.

Mr. H ALFORD was not at all desirous of defeating the
13111; on the contrary, he was most desirous for it to pass.
His amendment was intended to supply a defect in the General
Turnpike Act, as well as the Bill. He could not consent to
withdraw it.
Major BEAUCLERK wished to set the Hon. Member
for Yorkshire right. Bones and bone-dust, when used, or
to be used as a manure, would be exempt, as the Bill now
stood.
Lord LOWTHER (we believe) said he could not support
the Amendment—it would be just as natural to ask for ex-
emption for bricks as for lime or tiles.
After a few words from Mr. LAWSON and Mr. C. PELIIAM
in support of the Amendment, and from Mr. EWART, the
Gallery was cleared for a division, when there appeared—.
For the Amendment
Against it 32
Majority against the Amendment —l
PRISONERS' COUNSEL BILL.

Mr. EWART moved the third reading of the Prisoners
Counsel Bill.
Colonel PERCIVAL begged leave, before the Bill was
read a third time, to enter his protest against it, because he
considered it most mischievous in its tendency. Indeed he
could not see that it would be in the slightest degree advanta-
geous to the unfortunate prisoners ; and was convinced that it
would only benefit pettifogging attorneys, while it would
double and even treble the county rates all: over England. He
should not move that the second reading of the Bill take place
that day six months, but if any Hon. Member would make that
motion he would support it.
Sir E. WILMOT did not rise to propose the postpone-
ment of the second reading until that day six months, nor did
he think that the Bill would only benefit pettifogging attor-
neys, though he admitted that it might have the effect of in-
creasing the county rates ; but that was not his objection to it.
lie objected to it because he thought, except in capital cases,
it would be an injury, and not a benefit to the prisoner, not-
withstanding all that had been urged to the contrary by two-
thirds of the bar. When he recollected that more than one-
half of our prisoners for trial were mere children, and that
there were very few capital cases, he could not see what ad-
vantage would arise from having four speeches on every trial.
He had just come from a Quarter Sessions, at which one
hundred prisoners were tried, two-thirds of them being
under age, some under twelve, and others under nine years old.
He was perfectly certain that the Bill would be impracticable,
if the Judge had to sift the chaff from the corn, and unraystify
the speeches of the Counsel, by directing the Jury to the
common sound sense of each case. Counsel would do their
best to get an acquittal without reference to truth or justice,
and no Judge in the country possessed physical and mental
power enough equal to the task. Make the Bill to apply to
capital cases only, and increase the number of Local Courts,
and he thought it might be beneficial, but not else. He
therefore protested against the Bill in its present shape, be-
Cause it would be productive of serious injury to prisoners,
and those Hon. Gentlemen wbo supported it would be the
first to make the discovery.
Mr. HARRY DENT GORING reminded the House
that this Bill appeared again before them in the shape
in which they had rejected it last Session ; and therefore,
without trespassing further on the time of the House,
having stated last Session his reasons for the course he had
then taken, and was now about to take, he would move that
the Bill be read a third time this day six months.—(Loud cries
of " Hear.")
Mr. CRIPPS thought that the House ought to pay very
great attention to the observation of the Hon. Baronet (Sir
E. Wilmot), after the experience he had had on this subject
at the Quarter Sessions of Warwickshire. He (Mr. C.)
was precisely of the same opinion as the Hon. Baronet.
It was said that the Judges who tried prisoners, did not
really act as counsel for them. Now he could state that lie
had never seen an instance in which the person presiding in a
Court of Justice whether he was a Judge of the Land, or a

Chairman of the Sessions, did not consider himself as Counsel
for the prisoner, and who did not consider it incumbent upon
himself to enter into every point that tended to exculpate the
prisoner.—( Hear, hear.) This had always been his practice.
In point of expense also, this Bill would operate most exceed-
ingly hard upon the counties, which were already so hard
pressed, that the Government intended to bring in a Bill to
relieve the counties from paying the expenses of both Sessions
and Assizes. The Hon. Baronet (Sir E. Wilmot) had stated
the number of juvenile offenders who came before him—he
(Mr. C.) could assure the House that the number was
astonishing, and was increasing in a formidable degree. This
Bill, he thought, would greatly increase the expenses of the
counties, and would not be found likely to benefit the prisoners
themselves.
Sir G. STRICKLAND rose to give his most hearty sup-
port to this Bill. It was an act of tardy justice and mercy ;
for he considered it nothing more. There would not be
many years or months before every person in this country
would be in utter astonishment that one side, and only
one side of a case should be heard in a British court of justice.
He must say that the arguments of those who opposed this
Bill were of a very trifling character. The Hon. Baronet ( Sir
E. Wilmot) said that if the Bill were confined to murder
alone, he would agree in it.
Sir E. WlLl'vl OT—To capital cases.
Sir G. STRICKLAND—CapitaI cases, then. Why ?
why not in all other cases? If the Bill gave fair justice in
the one case, why not give it in all inferior cases ?
—( Hear, hear, hear.) But then came a most formidable
argument that this Bill would occupy so much of the time of
Courts of Justice. They were, therefore, to inflict imprison-
ment, perhaps transportation, because it would occupy too
much of the time of the judges and magistrates at Quarter
Sessions, to inquire into the case. He did not believe that
such an experiment could be sincerely supported by any Mem-
ber of the House. It was always a matter of astonishment to
him that they should haee gone on so long. Every person
who had attended Courts of Justice in England—there were
many Counsel present—he appealed to them—he appealed to
the late Attorney-General, the Member for Northampton ( Sir
F. Pollock) who, in a speech full of argument and good feel-
ing, supported this Bill. He ( Sir F. Pollock) said he felt
shame when he attended our Courts of Justice. Coming
from such an authority, which he hoped the House would
agree with him was a high one, he would say that
he would take no shame to himself for supporting this Bill,
which he hailed 'as an act of tardy justice, to enable prisoners
to make a defence in a Court of Justice.
Sir E. WILMOT wished to explain. During twenty-nine
years that he had attended the Sessions, he had known hardly
a case in which any statement whatever was made against the
prisoner.—( Hear, hear.) The practice always was, the
instant the Jury was sworn to call witnesses. If a speech
was made on the part of the prosecution, he would allow a
speech to be made for the prisoner. He did not use the
loss of time as an argument—he did not care whether he
sat a week or twelve months ; but his opinion being that it
would make against the prisoners, he used the argument of
taking up the time of the Court as ancellary to his other ar-
gument.
Mr. LE NNARD, with all respect for the opinions of those
who thought that to allow prisoners to have Counsel would do
them no good, begged to say that their opinions were more
than balanced by opinions equally worthy of attention the other
way. Mr. Justice Blackstone had stated that it was a most
cruel thing to deprive prisoners of Counsel, especially in cases
affecting their lives, and that statement had been borne out by
what had since taken place. He knew of one instance where
two persons were ordered for execution, one was reprieved and
the other executed, and he had no hesitation in saying,
in that instance, if he had had Counsel, he would have been
reprieved also ;if not, found not guilty. It was said that
benefits resulted to the prisoner from the present system ;
that argument to him was incomprehensible. It had been
said that the judges were the counsel for the prisoner ; in Ins
opinion, no fallacy was more glaring than that. How could
the judge be the prisoner's counsel ? He had no access to him,
and how, therefore, could he ascertain what were the answers the
prisoner made to the statements against him? There had
been a Return laid before the House of the number of cases
that had been brought before his Majesty in Council ; from
n
that Return it appedred that out of 40 cases there were 15 in
which the sentences had been remitted. It was only in Lon-
don that cases were submitted to the King in Council ; and
what would have been the effect had not those cases been
carried before the King in Council? Why the prisoners
would very probably have been executed.—( Hear, hear. )
In cases of murder it was the common practice to execute
the prisoner 43 hours after his sentence, and therefore the
prisoner would be executed before the circumstances of the
ease could be represented in the proper quarter. In the
country prisoners accused of murder were generally toed on
Friday. The facts and circumstances of their case could not,
therefore, be represented in the provincial papers, by which
some facts might be checked that might alter his sentence.
Being deprived of that, lie (Mr. L.) thought he ought to
be allowed to have persons of talent and experience to advo-
cate his cause. Considering all the circumstances, he gave
his hearty and cordial support to the motion of his Honour-
able Friend.

Mr. ITKINNON complained that the Hon. Member op-
posite had omitted, in the observations which he had made, to
state, that in cases where the prisoner had no Counsel, the
Judge was to act a:3 his Counsel. His objection to the all
was, that it gave the rich man an advantage over the poor
man.--(Hear.) If a Counsel was advantageous to a pri-
soner, a clever Counsel must be; decidedly so, the adminis-
tration of the law had been hitherto most impartial, and he
thought the Hon. Member who introduced the Bill should
have brought forward some very strong facts to show that
the criminal law was not c;.ecuted in a fair or proper manner.
With regard to the 4th clause, which provided that persons
accused before Justices could be assisted by attorney or Coun-
sel, he considered it most injudicious. tle would put the
case of a person brought before a country gentleman, not very
well versed in the law. If the accused was a rich man he
could employ able Counsel, and he appealed to that House, if
he would not have in such a case a decided advantage over a

..... . ..... __ _
poor man, brought before the Magistrate under the same cir-
cumstances, and who was unable to fee Counsel. Although he
gave the Hon. Member due credit for the humane motives
which had prompted him to bring in this Bill, he must, on the
grounds he had stated, decidedly oppose the third reading.
Mr. LENNARD explained.
Mr. POULTER wished the Hon. Member for Liverpool,
instead of the present Bill had introduced one for allowing
prisoner's counsel to reply in cases where counsel for the
Crown addressed the Jury. He thought the present Bill was
likely to be injurious to the cause of justice. He (Mr. Poul-
ter) had spoken to the late Attorney-General relative to the
case of a man. who had been executed for murder having been
last seen in company with an elderly person whose scull had
been fractured. The late Attorney-General had said that his
impression was that the fracture had been accidental, but this
was not an authenticated case of innocence : it was merely a
surmise that such bad been the case, and there was no proof
that any arguments that could be used by a Counsel could
have saved the prisoner. In the cases quoted by the Hon. and
Learned Member for the Tower Hamlets a few nights
since, there were ones in which, after conviction, the
Crown had granted a free pardon. But none of them
were cases of authenticated innocence.—( Hear, hear.)
He believed that if any circumstances came out after the
trial which would warrant the interference of the Crown, his
Majesty would be advised to grant a free pardon. Such was
the humanity of the principle upon which the criminal law
was based ; and although in the lapse of ages, and in the infir-
mities of our natures, some mistakes might occur, lie thought the
present Bill did not provide an adequate remedy for any de-
fects that might exist. This was not to be treated as a common
Parliamentary discussion—it was a philosophical discussion of a
very important nature, and which he believed was not very
well understood by the country p,-enerally.—( Hear, hear. )
He had seen many cases of assault, where verdicts were re-
turned against the real facts, even against the speech of coun-
sel ; and that, on many occasions, merely because the witness
for the prosecutor happened to be better dressed than the pri-
soner. These were the objections he had to the Bill. lie
conceived it would prove to be very disadvantageous to the
ends of justice, and therefore he would oppose it.
Mr. HARDY could not agree in what had fallen from the
Hon. and Learned Member for Shaftesbury (Mr. Poulter).
He had had much experience in criminal cases, and in many,
very many of them, he would have been exceedingly glad to
have heard the opinions of Counsel upon them, as they would
have given in a speech to the Jury. • The Judge was con-
sidered, and was in fact, Counsel for the prisoner ; but
that was only so far as to see that he had justice
done him—that the verdict was found against him according to
law ; of what use, then, would counsel be to a prisoner, when
he was not allowed to do more than the Judge was now bliged
to do. He would like very well to know upon what grounds
the Hon. Member for Shaftesbury opposed this Bill. Was it
because that there would be a greater waste of time than at
present? If so, that ground of opposition would extend
to all cases of misdemeanour, some of which were
of a very aggravated nature, much more so than many
cases of felony. He contended that by allowing counsel to
prisoners, they would actually save a vast deal of time, for
then there would be no occasion for long cross-examinations,
which were entered into for the mere purpose of affording, in
the shape of the questions, an opportunity to counsel
to open as much of a case as they were allowed to do by the
Judge. Nor would there be many of those objections
taken, which were now taken for the purpose of addressing
the Jury, through the appearance of arguing a point of law.
He thought it a most humiliating thing that a prisoner should
be told that his Counsel could not speak for him in his defence ;
thus tantalizing a poor man, who perhaps never before had an
opportunity of expressing himself before any body of men
until that solemn occasion..-4 Hear.) The poor man might
as well save himself the expense of Counsel. He hoped that
this House would agree that this anomaly in the law of Eng-
land should be destroyed.---( Hear. )
Mr. C. BULLER admitted the force of some of the argu-
ments which had been directed against the details of the Bill,
but he thought the principle of the Bill remained undisturbed.
Indeed, there were some clauses—that allowing four speeches
on each trial, and another for allowing. Counsel to appear
before Magistrates—that would, in his opinion, prevent
the working of the Bill, and it would therefore be better to
omit them.—( Hear. ) All the most eminent lawyers in this
House, with the exception of the Hon. Member for Exeter,
who had not spoken upon the subject, had expressed them-
selves decidedly in favour of this Bill. The Hon. Member for
Shaftesbury had already informed the House what had been
said by the late Attorney-General, who last Session came down
to this House and made a flaming spoech in support of this
Bill.---( Hear, hear.) He should, however, allude to some
distinguished Crown Lawyers of the present dav, who
had ranked themselves amongst its most decided sup-
porters. In the year 1827 or 1928, Lord Brougham, who
had had great experience, declared himself strongly in favour

of the Bill. The present Lord Chief Justice (Lord Denman)
who had had more experience as a lawyer, an advocate,
and a judge than any other legal authority, had also de-
clared himself in favour of it. The last to whom he should
refer was one who from his greatness as a lawyer, and from
the circumstances under which his opinion was given was de-
serving of attention, and he was also one of the greatest
ornaments of the English bar ; he alluded to the pre-
sent Lord Abinger, who came down to the House
and said that he had hitherto opposed the Bill, but he was
convinced, upon mature deliberation, that it ought to pass, and
upon that occasion he gave it his hearty support. He did not
wish to enter into the merits of the Bill, but he thought it
really too hard that Hon. Members should describe this Bill as
injurious to prisoners because it would allow Counsel to defend
them in a proper manner. He thought it was one of the great
merits of this Bill, that Counsel, instead of bothering the wit-
nesses, and insinuating the greatest absurdities in cross-exa-
mination, would be obliged to make a plain, straightforward
address to the Jury upon the clear facts of the case. With
these views of the Bill, he should be perfectly ready to support
the proposed alterations.
Mr. E. BULLER thought that if the Counsel on
both sides were allowed to make speeches, the mischief
would far outweigh the benefit.—( Hear, hear.) It ap-
peared to him that, upon the w hole, prisoners at present
were under no unfair disadvantage. The speech against them
was generally confined to a plain statement of facts. The
Judge found it his duty to point out to the jury any doubts that
might arise, and the prisoner had the benefit of those doubts.
Thus the prisoner at present had the advantage of every doubt
construed in his favour. He much doubted whether Counsel
would be of any advantage to the prisoner. Feeling as
he did that the advantages that might arise from this Bill
would not adequately compensate for the great increase of
expense it would occasion, he felt bound to oppose it. The
county which he represented had, on an average, 120 pri-
soners to try. What time would these trials take if each of
the prisoners were to be allowed Counsel ? If a sufficient
necessity were shown for this Bill, he would not object to it;
but on the whole he felt bound to oppose it.
Sir C. BURRELL would admit that the Hon. and
Learned Members of that House, generally speaking, sup-
ported this Bill ; but he was well informed by members of the
profession out of the House, that the generality of them en-
tertained a very different opinion—they were hostile to the
alteration as proposed by this Bill. At the Courts of Quar-
ter Sessions he had invariably seen the Chairman direct
the prisoner to put any questions he pleased to the
witnesses, as soon as his testimony was given ; and
where, from want of capacity or indisposition, prisoners
did not avail themselves of this power, the Chairman
himself and the Magistrates have the power of questioning
witnesses. He could state many instances in which
prisoners were disposed to plead guilty on those occasions.
The Chairman invariably cautioned the prisoner against so do-
ing, and induced him to withdraw his plea, and to put himself
upon his trial, and this sometimes with advantage to the prisoner.
He was of opinion that this Bill would operate unfairly be-
tween rich and poor. On every occasion the rich would be
sure to have Counsel whilst the poor would have counsel against
them, and would thus labour under great disadvantage.
Another point was, that where there was a doubt fairly en-
tertained in a case of felony, the Judge invariably applied to
his Majesty to alter the sentence, and that applica-
tion had been invariably attended with success.—( Hear,
hear.) To say, therefore, that the prisoner had not the benefit
of the Judges, or the Chairman of the Quarter Sessions, was
to say that which were not founded in fact. If through human
error a person was found guilty, who were not so, it must be
remembered that hundreds of felons had escaped who were
really guilty. He thought the Bill unnecessary, and he should
therefore oppose it.
Mr. RUTHVEN rose amid cries of " Question." He
would support the Bill, thinking that in all cases Where
accused of crime, they ought to have the best means of
defence. It was said that the Judges were Counsel for
the prisoners ; that might be so, but they were Counsel
for the Crown also.—( Hear, hear.) It was impossible that a
Judge could be a good counsel in all cases that came before
him ; and the object of the present Bill was to furnish a
better, and to give to every man accused of a crime the
best mode of defending himself, and without that it
was impossible he could have a fair trial.—( Hear, hear.)
He, hoped, as he had not troubled the House upon the subject,
that he would be excused for occupying its attention with
these few remarks, and would conclude by giving his cordial
support to the Bill.
Mr. N. FirzsimoN thought that it would be ex-
tremely injudicious to allow prisoners brought before Magis-
trates, Counsel and Attorneys to defend them. Very large
fees would be made up in cases of murder by the friends of the
party accused, and many Attorneys would be glad to get em-
ployment in that way. He should, therefore, support the
amendment—( Question.)
Mr. E WART replied—He regretted that the Hon. Mem-
ber for Shoreham would not withdraw his amendment. He
had been called upon to slim ground for this Bill by facts, but
they had been stated in very considerable number by the late
Attorney-General ( Sir F. Poilock), by the Hon, and Learned
Member for Dublin, and by the late Member for Hull. The
amendments suggested now had been already Made in the Com-
mittee, and upon a division they had been rejected.
these circumstances be hoped the House would now permit this
Bill to be read a third time.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House
divided, when the numbers were—
For the amendment— 36
For the third reading 43
Majority
On our readmission, we found Mr. C. BULLER moving
that the second clause be omitted.
Mr. E WART objected to it, and the gallery was again
cleared, when the numbers were--
For the amendment
Against it
Majority —l
The House then divided upon the third reading, when there
appeared—
For the third reading
Against it .
Majority for the passing of the Bill 1
Mr. BAINES brought up the Report of the Committee on
this Bill.
The other Orders of the day that stood for this morning
were then atkourned, and the Speaker left the Chair at three
o'clock.