The Sun.
London, England, 1826-04-26 00:00:00

CATHOLIC PETITION.

Sir F. BURDETT, in presenting the Petition of, the General
Body of Catholics in Ireland, said, he should not feel justified in
going at any length into the subject of the Catholic Petition, at
the same time he should briefly say, that his feelings were not at
all changed as to: his conviction of, the soundness, policy, and wis-
dom of attending to their claims. As it was not now intended to
bring on a discussion of the question, it would not be fair to say
more than to premise that the claims of the Catholics were founded
in reason and justice, and were of such a nature, that they were
never to be satisfied until they were totally conceded ; that they
were the claims
,of six millions of his Majesty's subjects, whose
character had been so highly spoken of in the other House
by a Noble Lord at the
,head of his Majesty's Government as
being at once is brave, honest, laborious, and worthy a people
as ever existed under the sun. To men who had been thus
characterised and clewilaelllllipt•Nopeinan it must be, indeed,
grating to hear frtin.44,:yrry,iiirne: that they Were not fit
to be admitted withipt,ther4o.4 thnAoooh C,onstitution.—
He could have little doubt on his mind that] the liotise,woukl be
of opinion with him, that there was no doubt that !carton? justice,
and propriettpointed dut.that,' was, improper TP4lions, Of
people should be Aliens in their native land.,-(Hear.).,
these claims were settled 1611'0466W by acceding to them, they
as a body never could be satisfied ; nor ought they to rest tver
,sitisfied until put on the same footing as other suhyots of the
realm.
• Mr. BR OUG HA 'Si rthße to Reg i{l the *Om
TlieTetition being read bitlincre4:Ohlaslfouse at the table,
which occupied twenty minutes,
Sir F. BURDETT moved it should be printud and laid mote
table.

. .
Mr. G. BANKER said, as the .Hon. :13aronet and the Se-
couder had both refrained from going into the general question, he
should observe the same abstinence; but as the Hen. Baronet had
*aid that hisiNings in favour Of, the removal of all political re-
strictions Were Unaltered, he would also state that his feelings, to-
, getlwr with those with whom he had, last year and before acted,
continued also unchanged. They,ftwed this avowal to themselves
and to their constituents, who, as there was a good deal of public
feeling at eleftirs Would be better able to select front amongst
taudidate9hov who would be most disposed to support the Con-
stitution. :'she Hon. Baronet bad Mentioned both justice And
reason as 31i 14is. side, but he could never see. that there could be
either justice"dtt"ie.fiscid In placing the Protestant Church in the
hands of men who contended that theirs was the only true and
orthodox Church. As to the Church of Ireland, if delivered into
such hands, he was decidedly of opinion it could not survive there
two SessionallPailiament. Indeed, the transactions of the two
. last years, attitilte ittai Otthe Catholics themselves, had tended to
confirm tat P4sietitcrtained previously by his friends.
'The II:
311 i ATE PATHOLIC ASSOCIATION.

.Mr. BROUGHAM. pret406404, a Petition fr om the same body,
praying for the repeal of the Act of last Session fur putting down
the Irisk c4tholic Associatiott..:4Ordered to be, printed.
The Cotder'cit for taking into consideration the State
of the Eo4s)p4Tliiiens h Ireland was postponed until Friday.
_ _
_12,2111'.21, 1, 04,E PROPRIETORS.

Mr. iiititeiresented a Petition from Augustus H. Beau-
mont, 'Plantest,m, Amadeu, at prtsient residing in London,
praying. sat ugnitable regard to the interests of ;the neuters in
their Metes. ,-(rini; Ilarni, /Member deprecated a certain . tone
which hod' been nosed in the :11011W and out of it. It was pecu-:
liarly incombent upon theinf under present circumstanecte, to act
with prielence'and caution. Much as he admired the caution
and firtnuesS evitteed upon the subject, by the &mutiny for
Foreign Affaira,. he could, tint entirely approve of his, state
went, that the time rony'eeme when the Colonists should'. ay.;
Isar contumacious, and if it did, the Parliament would not ap-
pear to want power. For his part, he would be sbrry that the
/larliannett and the Colonies did not concur in the proposed
measure looking at the whole of the queetion, it would,
ha thought be too much to expect, that the evils of the,
Trade- be ended, without the Co-operation of
the proprietors of the' Bathe:ltaly- in which the proprietors
state their determination not to admit certain propositions
made by Ministers, until they are previously satisfied that
they will not be attended with the ruin of their properties. He
would ask there, that since the, had for so long a time supported
the trade, which Was by considered a stein and blot upon the
country, was it now too much to claim of their justice, and their
humanity, to pay some attention to the interests of the Whites AO
well as the Blaelts. No man was more desirous than be, that this
Lint should be removed.---He was most anxious that the nation,
as a nation, should effect 'the change, but he did not wish that the
113 00411te should be'tioinplited at the expence' of the unfortunate
rumors of slave property. He wita Induced to present the pc.
tition, not only from the genekil topics which it embraces, but at
the urgent request of the individual, who conceived his property
to be endangered. lie WOuld_ pow anove that- it be laid on the
table.

Mr. Secretary CANNING. had no wish to enter at present
into the merits .of the Petition, still less wee► he disposed to
answer the speech with, which the Hon. Member had thought
proper to preface its introduction. He could not undertake to do
this if he were not at the lame time prepared to touch upon all
the points of the great question which the speech comprehended,.
and which had so long agitated and divided the country. They
would, at a future period, upon the introduction of the motion of
which the Honourable/MEI Learned Member (Mr. Brotrghtun) had
given notii..s, 111%4 the opportunity of discussing the subject, and
with considerable advantage to the whole question. He would
notitrouble the House with any further observation* at present,
norehew an example of violating that rule which he himself had
laid down.
The Petition wee laid on the table,
INSOLVENT LAW IN INDIA.

Mr. HUMS Fremeriti:ll a Petition from H. Howel, a free mer-
chant of India, complaining of the tyranny of creditors to their
deibions, and praying for the enactment of an Insolvent Law in
After a few words from Mr. W. WYNN, the Petition was laid
upon the table.
WEST INDIA • JUDICATURE.
Lord NIWENT %lied-the attention of the House to the lin-
proveithst4il ilidifikirdiiration of the laws in the Welt India
Islands. After making a few observations, his Lordship con-
cluded by withdrawing his motion as Government promised to
-Sake up the subject.
Mr. W. HORTON said that it was the intention of hid Majesty's

Government to carry into effect the recommendations for im-
provements.
Motion by leave withdrawn.

COUNSEL FOR FELONS.

5.)16,. 0, LAMB rose to bring forward the motion of which he
had already given notice. He had last year called the attention
of -die House to it; and although upon that occasion he had not
been sucoessful,- he did not despair to be yet able to obtain the
sanction of the House to it. The opinions on which his motion
had last year been founded, had not suffered any diminution or
change since that time; on the contrary, they had rather been
corroborated, and the propriety of the measure confirmed. The
Attorney-General had on a former occasion argued strongly, on
the injustice which the public suffered on this subject; it might
therefore be expected that that Honourable and Learned Gen-
tleman would have brought in a Bill to remedy it. On bring-.
ing this subject again for consideration before the House, be
hoped for its indulgence; it was a dry subject for-discussion, and
the House would, be knew, require patience to attend to the
equally dry protemium of quotations from old legal authorities.
The Magna Chaita, among its other excellent provisions, de-
clared, that no man was found guilty unless " per jutlicium pa-
tium aut per legem term." He had reason to suppose that
that passage referred to felons, for at that period he believed
the Crown had not assumed the privilege of being the public
prosecutor. He was therefore prepared to contend that the
practice of the old laws of England had been to allow Counsel to
felons ; but the practice of that law had been variously changed..
The authority of Blackstone and of Whitelocke was also favour-
able to his view of the question. Even Justice Jefferies, when
required to justify the refusal of a copy of an indictment to a pri-
soner, had given an opinion admitting almost the propriety of al-
lowing Counsel in those cases. Justice Hale, and Sir R. Atkins,
when expressing their opinion in the case of Lord Russell, 'bad
grounded their reasoning upon similar principles. Sir Bartholo-
mew Shower, on writing a pamphlet, justificatory of the 'proceed-
ings adopted in the case of Lord Russell, had in a great measure
advocated those principles. Sir M. Foster, in his Crown Law,
had stated similar sentiments: .11

" At Common Law, no Counsel is allowed upon, the issue of
guilty or not guilty in any capital case whatsoever, except upon
questions of law; and then only in doubtful, not in plain; 'eases. '
I em far from disputing the propriety of this rule while it is con-
tined to :elony, and the lower class of treasons concerning the
coin and the seals. I know many things have been thrown out
upon this subject, and inconveniences, some real, some imagi-
nary, have been suggested by popular writers, who seem to have
attended,eingly to those on one side of the question ; but it is im-
possible, in a state of imperfection, to keep clear of all inconve-
niences, though wisdom will always direct us to the course which
is subject to the fewest and the least; and this is the utmost
human wisdom can do."
He was particular in queting from that Learned Judge, princi-
pally because his authority hail. been' adduced by the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman against Mtn.' Whenever there was occasion to
quote the opinion of a Judge upon the Bench, it ought to be re-
membered that it was the duty of Judges to administer the laws
as they were, and not as they ought to be. In the quotations
made by the opponents of the measure from Judge Foster, this
observation bad nut been strictly attended to. But if the autho-
rity of those Learned Judges had been opposed to allowing coun-
sel to felons, he could not see bow far that authority was to have
weight in prohibiting all improvements. This was an age of im-
provements ; the hacknied phrase, "the wisdom of our ancestors"
was no longer a cabalistic word of prohibition ; for improvements
were daily introduced as well into the law as into the administra-
tion of it. Opposition might he made to his motion, in the same
manner as last year, its being an innovation, hut he could shield
himself within thi shade of a Right Honourable Secretary,
whose Bill fur the improvement of the criminal law was now on
the table. If the criminal law could be improved in its enactments
and speiiifications, could it not also be improved in Its administra-
tion ? If no improveMent could be affected in thesidrojeisteetieu
of the law, was it not strange to find that the property 4 thf Fab-
ject was to be protected by kis Counsel, in civil caeesetvtilelai?
life was to be left unprotected in criminal ones? He could
therefore, but regard time Bill of the Right Hon.' Secretary 411
forming a strong precedent for his measure. But it ;was. said,
44 Where is the utility of your improvement? Is netAhse,lttim,
Counsel for the prisoner?" His answer to those two questions
was easy and satisfactory. " The Judge •icnet Counsel for the
prisoner, but for public justice • it is. the :levy therludge to see
that all proceedings are fairly condUcted on be% Stiles." This Nil-
Mon was founded upon conviction..it*as strungthaned., by: ape.
donee, and it was warranted by the highest authorities. lie had
received communications on this subject, from various parts of the '
country : among them was one from Biker,
tract from the charge of Sir W. GarroW to the Grand Jay, or
Devonshire, in August 1824, in which the sentiments 'tif•thiit
Learned Judge were explained, as condemning the practice of
refusing the benefit of an advocate to' felons. If counserwas
lowed to speak against them, why was, not. counsel ,ttlietved to
speak for them ? It was said, " If counsel will" be allowed to
plead for them,- the Judge will.have to reply against them ?" But
was not the same question to Ise neked.thus, 4.4 if counsel has to
plead against them, is the Judge bound to speak against them ?"
He begged the House to refer to the practice as it had been car-
ried on prior andsubsequent to the passing of. the !Treason Bills.
Were.the Judges prevented from administering justice effectually
in those cases now ? If Counsel was useful in the latter cases,
why not in the former 2 • .lt,,was admitted that the allowing of
,Counsel in treasonable care* was lint injurious, yet why could it
4>e in cases of felony'? If, under the present system of practice,
the prisoner was a man of talent, could the Judges not prevent his
speaking in whatever manner lie thought proper? Witness the
ease of Cooper, whom the Judge had caused to observe silence.—
He had seen a case in the newspapers, but which, as lie bad not
authenticated, lie would put hypothetically : six men had been ac-
cused of burglary ; one of them asked a witness if he knew whether
it was dark or light at the time stated ? This question elicited from
the Judge a remark that such knowledge of the nature of the
crime was indicative of very dangerous dispositions. But what
compelled the prisoners to seek that information? The system
of law, which precluded hopes of having the advantage of au
experienced advocate. Thus the prisoner was placed in the di-
lemma, that if he did not know the nature of his crime, he was
incapable of defence ; if lie knew the nature of the accusation
and of the crime, he was marked down as an atrocious criminal.
This practice could be equalled only by the reply of the eccen-
tric legislator, Jack Cade, who said to his prisoner, " hang
him, if 'tie only fur pleading.so well for his life."—(Laughter.)—
If it, was possible to see a Judge on the Bench lose his temper,
on heuring.thellefence of a prisoner, by what means was the lat-
ter to expect justice? Again, the utility of allowing Counsel to
plead for felons, was evident from the protection which it would
afford to the interests of third persons. In the case of Bellingham,
fur instance, that criminal, in his defence, had uttered a tissue
of calumnies and' slanders against third individuals which no ad-
vocate could venture to state, and which the Court was neverthe-
less obliged to hear. Would not, therefore the pleading of Coun-
sel in his behalf have produced a better effect, at least one more
consonant with the administration of justice in a civilized country ?
One good he was sure would flow from the adoption of this Bill.
It would tend to diminish tier number of perjured alibis: The
evils of the present system would, he was convinced, have been
much more loudly complained of, hail the final abjudication of a
cause rested with the verdict of the Jury. Had there been
no final tribunal to resort to, petitiOns would lotig since have
poured in, calling for an alteration of the present law. But
when it was known that every case of conviction met with the
patient and impartial investigation of the,, Right Honourable
Secretary for the Home Department, *lose public cha-
racter and great talents afforded every evidence'', thet , no case,
upon which the shadow of a doubt rested, *tnildpaeit without
the most scrupulous revision, the public mind was eoMparatively
easy upon the subject.—(Hear, hear I)—Notwitlistlicriditig this
check to improper convictions, however, it could not be denied
that, occasionally, deplorable instances of the defective state of
the law upon this subject were found to occur. There had been
instances in which, through the praiseworthy -exertions of the
Right Honourable Gentlemen, innocent persona had been re-
prieved at the very foot of the gallows.—(Hear, hear !)—But
there had been instances still more deplorable, in which the bene-
volent labours of that' Right Honourable Gentleman had been
frustrated in consequence of the grossest perjury, which was in-
capable of detection after conviction. This was a painful sub-
ject, and one to which lie was unwilling to allude. lie might,
however, mention a recent instance—that of a female, named
Catherine Ferris, who, after conviction, lied been proved to-
tally innocent, the grossest perjury having been used against
her, end who hatl,• in consequence, received the King's par-
'&9•• It Wit', difficult to collect the opinion of the Bench upon
this subject. 1 le befieved, however, that he was correct in
stating, that they were :generally favourable to his measure.—
How must any -hinaaue;',Jtidge, for example, have felt, while
sitting upon the judgment seat', ,to be obliged to say to a poor
prisoner, who, after his case led been gone through, good
wishfully looking at litSi eirimed; in the hope that lie would
offer.sornething in his h"---lilX—"Prieoner, your Counsel can say
nothing for yOu--gaoler, take him; away." Although no Judge
had expresely expressed their approbation of the specific measure
which he (Mr. Lamb) proposed, thei4 had been Judges in former
times who adopted its principle, by recommending, that es the
Counsel for the defendant had not the liberty of reply, the Coun-
sel for the prosecution should not be allowed to make an opening

speech. This might !te'adrisable in some cases ; but, as a gene-
ralnde, he thoughtlhe fairest way would be, that whenever the
Counsel for, the prosecution made an opening speech, the Counsel
for the defence ought 'to be at liberty to reply. In cases of mis-
cemeanor, Counsel were allowed to address the Jury for the de-
fendant : and not only were they 'allowed to do so, but they were
afterwards allowed to put in affidavits in mitigation of punish-
ment, and, if necessary to move for a new trial. He saw no
reason why a person who was placed in a much more precarious
situation, whose very life was in jeopardy, should not be allowed
the same latitude of defence as a person to whom the consequences
of conviction, were much more trivial. Too much stress had,
perhaps, when the question was last discussed, been laid upon the
situation of persons tried for high treason. In cases of Peers tried
for felony, however, if any additional evidence was adduced, the
Counsel for the prosecution was allowed the liberty of reply.
This was the Luse in the trials of Lord Ferrets, Lord Byron, and
the Duchess of Kingston. In the latter ease particularly, the
Solicitor-General, Mr. Wedderburn, claimed the right of reply.
The Hon. and Learned Member, after alluding to the abolition of
trial by battle, and the other improvements which had taken place
in the administration of criminal law, concluded, by expressing
his conviction that the effect of his Bill would be, like that of the
Right Hon. -Secretary's (Mr. Peel), not to multiply convictions,
but
,to make conviction depend upon the facts of the rstse, and
moved, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to allow persons
tried for felony to make their defence, by Counsel.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, said, that after the fullest con-
sideration he had been enabled to bestow upon the subject, and
an anxious reference to all the authorities within his reach, he was
persuaded that the change proposed would in its effects be adverse
to the calm, fair, dispassionate, and candid administration of cri-
minal justice. The opinion of the Bar upon the question was, he
believed, divided; of the opinions of the Bench he was not able
particularly to speak, but he had reason to think that it was un-
favourable to the proposed alteration. his Hon. and Learned
Friend had said, that if he opposed the permission for Counsel to
defend prisoners accused of felony, lie ought in consistency to be
adverse to the employment of, Couneel in cases of misdemeanour,
as the same arguments
,weul4 equaIIYAIIIPTY to both. He admit-
ted that they did ; but what he said was, that if the measure was
a..douhtful one, it ought to he adopted with extreme caution;
as. if it were once.allowed,that persons accused of felony should
lteileferultsl by Counsel, it would be impossible for them ever to
fietMe',:itleir eseps,,,,,When, therefore, he was taunted with the
duty hie ii would impose upon him, to attempt to withdraw
the privilege now.enOyssiAty persons , accused of misdemeanour,
it was a sufficient enottyerto say, that it was in the nature of the
privelege that whei, pop allowed it could never--bikiibiilished.
It was true that aii addi4ss was permitted by Connie! thr the pro-
secution, but if they overstep the line of duty they are always cor-
rected by the Judge. He' did not mean to say that in no instance
whatever had this practice been abused by;the introduction of
matter not strictly explanatory of the evidentie which was to fol-
low. But it was an abuse which the proper feelings of the Bar,
and the vigilance of the Bench, rendered extremely rare. After
that address came the evidence for the prosecution, which was
heard calmly, deliberately, and cautiously. Then followed the
case for the prisoner, conducted by his Counsel, and lastly the
Judge summed up the whole, not, us had sometimes been
said, in the character of Counsel for the prisoner, not as
Counsel for either party, but ei Counsel for both, so far as
to see that the facts have been
,properly sifted, and that the
law applies to the facts. He thus submits to the Jury a calm,
temperate, and dispassionate view of the whole case. What subs
stitute then was offered in lieu of this? They. are to excite a
conflict, in which the zeal and emulation of Counsel, intent only
on carrying their respective points, are to be brought into play,
in place of the calm and solemn proceedings which now take
place. In those criminal cases which carne before the Court of
King's Welch he saw the effect of this daily. Counsel employed
in a case ..of perjury or conspirtick displayed the same zeal, the
same eagerness, the same desire to withdraw whatever might
initigate'isguinst the interest of their client, as in any civil action.
The question then for the House to decide_ was, whether any ad-
vantage was to be expected from this change ; or rather, whether
these advantages were, so great as to induce them to hazard the
,excellent system now in existence for the sake of the experiment.
optie put the question practically. Let them'not depend upon the.
inion of Sir Michael Foster or Mr. Justice Blackstone,- but let
-them form a judgment for themselves upon a full consideration of
the subject. He lied uo personal feelings oh' one side of the question
or the other ; let him he convinced by argument that the alteration
wenKlieribeneficiul,snd he would be quite ready to give it his support.
If Coiiiisel were to be heard on behalf of the prisoner, it would be
aitlifininaly unless the cabs split, limitations, and conditions were
'proscribed as in -the superiteenurti, in Which, , when evidence
ileas.called for the defence, the-1,444es counsel .Itad,e right of
ritply. ,ilt was the most anxious question the Counsel for a de-
fendant h' d to consider whether, by calling witnesses, he should
;give to t e plaintiff's Costlier, he having already produced the
first imp 'on, the.advantage of Troducing also upon the minds
"61iil4Iuiy the last impression. He had often heard the -Hon.
Member for Peterborough complain that the defendant, in action
id Iftiv, had decidedly: a• wortir ,chsttFte. than the plaintiff. By
ithtptiriA the proposition of his Hon. and Learned Friend, they
Would inflict upon the person accused- of felony all the disadvan-
tages now auffered by,the defendant, in an action at law. The
Counsel for the prosecutir- ,would then, by trick andirrange-
ment, force the urisenei,s counsel to call evidence, and after-
wards in reply availkikeiellof any little inconsisteucy to create an
impression unfavourable, to , the prisoner. It . was infinitely
better for the investigatien of truth that the evidence should be
heard fairly; fully,- and iniptirtially on both sides, and after-
wards calmly summed up by the Judge. One other observation
was essential upon this subject. Ile had stated that the Judge
was not to be considered as an advocate for the prisoner, but it
was of the utmost importance that the Judge should not appear ad-
verse to the prisoner. Now suppose the counsel for the prisoner,
as would frequentlyoccur, should determine to sacrifice the advan-
tage of calling witnesses in Order to secure what he might deem
the greater advantage of making a speech not to be replied to.
The Judge would, in this case, be obliged to correct the fallacies
of the Counsel for the prisoner, and as Judges were but men, it was
as difficult for them as for other men, when embarked upon a cur-
rent of argument, to stop at the precise line, and thus an impres-
sion would he frequently created that the judge would have pressed
hardly upon the prisoner, and that the unfavourable verdict was
owing to him. He would then go back to the original question—
' is the present administration of justice defective ? His Honourable
and Learned Friend said that persons were sometimes convicted
' when they ought to be acquitted.. This was certainly true ; but
the argument was entitled to little weight or consideration, unless
it could be sho an that this Would be more effectually prevented
under his system. The evil he thought would be of more frequent
occurrence under that system. This was his short view of the
case. 110 would not say that the administration of the law was
pt 'feet, bet he would say that it was excellent, and he was not de-
sirous of` liazarding a change, and particularly a change which its
advocates' intended must be productive Qf the :most important effects.
He called upon the House not to hazard, a step which it would be
impossible for them to retrieve. He htuLthus early stated his ob-
jections to the measure. , lie had stated them in all candour. His
objection, went to the whole principle of the proposed change, and
it was therefore as well tb eUte them now as on any subsequent
'stage of the proceeding.--4 Hear.)
Mr. JOHN WILLIAMS contended that, although the pre-
sent administration of tie, law was excellent, it might be ren-
dered more excellent. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman oppo-
site had admitted it to be, imperfect ; the object of the present
motion was to render it perfect. He hail argued it like a lawyer;
but the essential question was, whether the present administration
of the criminal law was satisfactory to the people. He thought
the withholding the assistance of Counsel from the prisoner cal-
culated to produce an impression of unfairnetii. The arguirient
that they would not retrace their steps. if they ventured upon this
experiment, was altogetheffutile. If disadvantages were found
to result from the new, there would be no difficulty in returning
to the old system. - . , •
Mr. Secretary PEEL, said, that a former discussion upon the
same question in that House had been conducted so ably, had been
conducted in a manner so 'creditable to the Horse, that his judg-
ment had vacillated as he listened to successive epeakers, and as the
•question remained doubtful, he had at last determined to give the
benefit of that doubt
,to the existing system. He might elite say that
his situation was calculated to render hiin rather favourable to the
change proposed, as it would in a great degree relieve him, from
that most painful duty of revising the verdict of Juries previous
to execution. In respect to authorities, they could not have
much weight, for the authorities were equipredominant.—
Neither did it weigh much with him that the proposed change
would lead to more frequent convictions. If the convictions
were just he should not consider them a disadvantage. He
had oftener than once' hid it represented to him that an tuts
fortunate question -put by the counsel for a prisoner bad led
to the conviction. _ . Rut of this the. prisoner must of course
-take the chino* . The consideration of expence, although not
to be loud eight of, was not to be put in competition with the
!objects of substantial justice,' but if the proposed alteration
was carried, important regulations would be necessary as to the
- time allowed for aasizes, and for the administration of criminal
justice in Middlesex. The Honourable and Learned Gentleman
who hid spoken last, had addressed himself to the important
part of !the question ; if he could prove that the present sys-
tem of administering justice did not give satisfaction to the

minds of the people, his opposition to the motion would be at
an end. He lied ample opportunities of judging, but of all the
petitions brougbk before him in behalf of convicts, he recol-
lected no instate in which the conviction had been ascribed
to the want of t assistance of Counsel. He then came to the
consideration which weighed principally with him. That was
that the proposed system would materially alter the situation of
Judges of Assize. If Counsel abused the privilege which this
law would afford, then a very painful and invidious duty would
devolve upon the Judge. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had
said that where a Thurtell or a Bellingham defended their own
cause, the Judge refrained from interrupting them, from feelings
arising out of the situation in which they were placed, but he
mentioned a case in which the Judge had said to a prisoner,
" Come, let us have none of your flourishes." This case, how-
ever, it ought to be recollected, was one in which the prisoner
was an attorney, so that the Judge probably said to him, or at
least he might have said, " Come, lawyer, let us have none of
your flourishes." The necessity of unanimity on the part of the
jury was also an immense advantage which the prisoner possessed
exclusively in this country. They were told that in Scotland
the prisoner was allowed to be defended by Scotland in cases of
felony. But in Scotland a majority of eight to seven, the Juries
being composed of fifteen, -was sufficient to convict the prisoner.
It appeared to him that Counsel might be allowed in such a case
as that ; and yet not be necessary where the unanimous verdict
of twelve men was indispensable to conviction. He denied that
.there was a partial or unfair administration of justice under the
present system, and he was unwilling to risk changes from
which the same advantages might not be derived. Upon these
grounds, admitting the subject to be one upon which he had en-
tertained much doubt—yet upon the whole, believing the change
prejudicial to the interests of justice, he should reluctantly vote
against the present motion.
Mr. H. TWISS differed from those who said that the present
system worked well, and deserved general admiration. As the
law now stood, if a prisoner meant to appeal to the jury upon
the facts of his case, he must do it from his own lips. Now, if a
prisoner were prevented from doing this by any physical defect,
such as blindness, deafness, or any other infirmity, would it be
said that the law ought not to be relaxed ? He contended that a
general ground for such a relaxation existed in the situation of a
prisoner being such as to divest him of the common resources of
the human mind andstrength. There was an expulsion so com-
mon in its use that it had grown into a proverb, which said, that
the man who was his own advocate had a fool for his client. He
apprehended that the converse would hold equally true, and that a
man who was his own client had a fool for his advocate. In cases
of treason—the highest offence known to the law—and in cases of
misdemeanour—the lowest, the prisoner was allowed Counsel to
speak in his defence. But in felony alone arose the difficulty and dan-
ger which his Hon. and Learned Friend had described. Now it
was well known that there were cases too numerous to mention,
where the nicest discrimination of the most practised advocate
was required to decide whether they should be prosecuted as trea-
son, felony, or misdemeanour. Taking the case of Lord George
Gordon : that case might have been prosecuted as a levying war
against the King, and it would have been treason ; if as sedition,
ft would have been a misdemeanour ; but if the prisoner were
charged with remaining an hour after the reading of the Riot Act,
it would be a felony; and, by that one ingenious stroke, he would
be tried for his life without the aid of Counsel, who, if the charge
had been for treason, might perhaps have saved it.
Mr. MARTIN supported the motion.
Mr. TINDALL opposed the motion.
Lord ALTHORPE spoke briefly in support of the motion.
Mr. SCARLETT said, that upon mature consideration of the
subject, in all its bearings, he was ready to admit that he had
changed his opinion. On the whole view of the question he sup-
ported the proposition for bringing in the Bill.
The SOLICITOR GENERAL was only desirous of saying
that the proposed novelty would tend to injure rather than improve
the proceedings in criminal justice.
Mr. BROUGHAM had formed a clear opinion in favour of the
motion. He thought the adoption of the proposal would remove from
criminal justice a great ignominy. The Right Hon. Secretary of
-State said he had never known a claim to mercy preferred on the
ground of improper proceedings at the trial. It might be ; but
no man who saw the fearful odds against a prisoner who had Coun-
sel against him, and none for him, could avoid saying that juctice
required something more. The moat material question was—
ought the country to be satisfied with this part of the criminal
law"? Was it intended to be said, that calmness and dignity were
observed in all criminal proceedings? Points of law were often
raised by Counsel, with a knowledge that the Judge must decide
against them.
_ _

Mr. Secretary CANNING maid, if he had any impression of
the necessity of a change he should be as ready to admit a change
in this case as any other, but until the balance preponderated in
favour of a change, he thought it safer not to change. It was
not a question whether the change would produce most acquittals
or convictions, but how far the change would increase the
confidence and celerity of proceedings in the Courts of Jus-
tice. The argument which weighed most ujmn his mind,
was that in which the Honourable and Learned Gentle-.
man said, the change would introduce contention, trials, and
alter the administration of criminal justice. On that ground
alone he should prefer leaving things as they are. That, how-
ever, would not weigh with him, if any injustice was done by the
present practice. With no indisposition to hear it discussed
again, he should on the present occasion oppose the motion.
Mr. DENAIAN approved of the Bill, because it equalised the
condition of the prisoner and the prosecutor ; and any person who
might be innocent and at the same time accused of a crime, stood
no chance, on account of his being refused that assistance which
his accuser had. He should give his most cordial assent to the
Bill.

Mr. GEORGE LAMB replied.
The Iltiuse then divided, when there appeared—.
For the Motion
Against it

- - - Si;
- - - - 1l)5
Majority - - _69
The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, cud the
House adjourned at Two o'CLoetc. •