The Sun.
London, England, 1842-06-15 00:00:00

THE PLEA OF NOT GUILTY.

The same NOBLE LORD presented also a petition from
John Smith, of Liverpool, a lecturer upon education,
and praying that the plea of " Not guilty " should be
abolished, and that some mode should be adopted to
enable accused persons to plead, without asserting that,
of the falsehood of which they were conscious.

Lord DENAIAN remarked, that the practice of Judges
persuading prisoners to plead " not guilty," had entirely
disappeared from the courts of law in England. Fur
himself; he could see no occasion why prisoners should
be calledbn to plead at all, unless they desired to express
their plea of guilty. That was the opinion he enter-
tained, and he had expressed the same sentiment, some
time ago, in the House of Commons.
Lord CAMPBELL was ofopinion that the asking ofpri-
sorters whether they would take their trial or not, was much
the same as asking them whether they were guilty or nut.
The scandal of Judges solemnly advising the prisoner to
tell a falsehood, was now done away with ; but he must
say, that he thought it would be a still greater improve-
ment upon the present practice, if no questions should
be put at all, but that the prisoner should have the right,
if he chose to prevent trouble, to confess his guilt.
Lord WYNFORD never knew a Judge who advised a
prisoner to plead " not guilty." He had himself, when
a Judge, recommended a prisoner to pause before he
gave in his plea ; and he should do the same thing nc.,w,
if he were in a position to do so. He thought that
great inconvenience arose from continued alterations in
the law.

The Bishop of CHESTER suggested that the prisoner
should be asked whether he wished to confess, or whether
he wished to be tried ?

SYRIA.

Lord HOWDEN said that in the absence of the Nobl,

Lord, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, he.
wished to ask the Noble Lord, at the head of the Admi
ralty, whether the official reports received from the Con-.
sular authorities in Syria, confirmed the accounts which
he received yesterday by the mail, from respectable par-
ties there, that that country was rapidly progressing to d
state of disorganization. They had had an Ambassador
at Constantinople, who was determined to go to war with
somebody. They had—
The Dube of WELLINGTON—This was exactly tan-
tamount to making a speech, without intending to mak,
a motion. The Noble Lord was asking a question, with-
out having given notice, which was not according to the
principle of that House. Ilis Noble Friend would fur.
give him for calling him to order.
Lord HOWDEN briefly explained.
Lord HADDINGTON said, that in the absence of the
Noble Lord, the Secretary of State for Foreign
he was not able tO-answer questions 'of •the nature which

had been proposed to him: The best thing his Nobit•
Friend could do would be to give notice, and no, doub.-
the Noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, would
be in his place to answer the question. He might state
that ho had seen communications from the officers of
some of those stations,. but he thought the fullest infor-
mation on the subject would be obtainel at the Forel.",
office.— (Hear.) _ _ _

The Earl of STANHOPE postponed the presents-
tion of the petition of which he had given notice, on the
subject of the Anatomy Act, to Thursday.
Lord DENMAN presented several petitions against
enforcing certain persons to take oaths.
COPYRIGHT BILL.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said he had consult( d
with his Noble and Learned Friend, and they had acrre( (I
to certain amendments, which would be inserted in:
the Bill.

The Bill then went through Committee, and was or-
dered to be read a third time on Thursday,
WITNESSES INDEMNITY BILL.
On the Order of the Day for the second reading of the
Witnesses Indemnity Bill,
Lord BROUGHAM rose to bring forward his mo-
tion that the Orders of the Day be suspended, to facili-
tate the progress of the Bill. Notwithstanding the
House of Commons had rejected the Bill which he had
brought in, and which their Lordships had sent down to
the other House, for Committees of both Houses to
inquire into practices of a corrupt nature at
elections for Members of the other House, still he was
convinced that a Committee of Members of the Commons
alone could never do justice to such cases., He denied
that their Lordships had any desire to interfere with the
rights and privileges of the other House ; but what was
contemplated now in both Houses was to legislate pros-
pectively on a matter of criminal justice. That House
(the Lords) was a co-ordinate branch of the Legislature,
and was the highest Court of Criminal Justice ; and was
it not a place in which legislation upon criminal justice
should commence ? To deny this, and say that the
House should be excluded from legislating for crime be-
cause that crime was connected with elections to the
other House, was so extravagant that he would not
stop to combat it. The bribery of an officer of justice
was a crime on which the House had already legislated,
and the bribery of a man at an election for a Member
of Parliament was as much under the cognizance of
their Lordships as any other act of bribery unconnected
with elections. Suppose it was proposed to amend the
law with respect to riot, larceny, assault and
battery, conspiracy. or even murder,, Were they
to be told that they might legislate respecting
these as committed in all other places but at elections,
and that they should expressly enact in any Bill com-
menced by them that the Bill was not to extend to any
riot, larceny, assault and battery, conspiracy or murder,
connected with an election for a Member of the House

4C-on:mons? He held it perfectly:clear that it was coin- 1
petent to the House to take up this steljtct as much as
that of any other crime. He thought that after what.
passed recently as to the extent of crime_ which was
committed all over the country, in England,:lreland, and
Scotland, and that these enormities were of such a na-
ture as to prevent the possibility of a free choice of the
peop'e, and to render elections a mockery—when all
morality was set at defiance, and immorality scattered
abroad, cast over the land—and when there was no pu-
nishment for the past, and no prevention for the future,
in the present state of the law, there was nothing left
but to legislate upon the subject, and as that was not
done elsewhere he had moved their Lordships for
a Committee to inquire with a view to legislation.
He had presented for this reason as early as he possibly
could, a Bill for facilitating the inquiry, if the House of
Commons chose to adopt a like course. That Bill met
with the almost universal approbation of their Lordships,
and was despatched to the other House about a month
ago. It did not give actual -indemnity to witnesses,
but it gave power to Election Committees to indemnify
witnesses if they honestly and impartially gave answers
to every question which was proposed to them. There
were many persons who would not come forward, un:ess
they knew that they themselves were to be indemnified ;
but there was another, and perhaps a larger class, who,
having been accomplices with others, which accomplices
would not come forward unless indemnity were promised
to themselves and to their accomplices—to those accom-
plices thii Bill afforded an indemnity. A declaratory
clause was also added to the Bill, .upon the advice of the
Noble Viscount, late Speaker of the House of Commons.
The whole of those measures referred to one individual
case, and that was the case of the last general election ;
they had no prospective or retrospective view, but the
provisions referred to the last general election alone.
He, for one, should have been content to say that, deep
as was the extent, frightful as was the mass of bribery,
and corruption, and intimidation which took place at the
last general election, that to obiain the possibility of
stemming that vile torrent of corruption, he gave up the
chance of punishing the offenders at that election, he let
bygones be bygones for this once, he looked only to re-
trospective legislation and prevention, and if he could
prevent such offences for the future, he should be content.
With that view and upon that principle, .that measure
was framed, and sent down to the other House. He had
every reason to believe, and he hoped and trusted he was
entitled to believe, that there prevailed the same desire
to prevent the recurrence of these practices in the other
House of Parliament, as animated their Lordships. That
House was, if possible, more nearly and more deeply in-
terested in the prevention of these practices than their
Lordships. He wished to speak with respect of that ai-
sembly—he would go further, he would respect it not
only in proportion as, by its conduct, it respected itself,
but he would give it that larger measure of respect in
proportion to what its conduct ought to be. An effec-
tual measure was sent down to the other House, enabling
them to get at the truth if they were so disposed. The
first thing they did was to say .they would not have it.
They said it would enable them to do what they wanted,
but they would not take it because it was sent from their
Lordships. That Bill was sent back to their Lordships.
What did they lose by that but time ? In three days
that measure might have become the law of the land.
They might have altered it, but instead of that the Bill
was entirely thrown on one side, and another was intro-
duced in its place; the only consequence of which was,
that there was a delay of several weeks. The Bill sent
up by the Commons had to go through all the stages of
a new measure. It required all the charity he possessed
to come to the conclusion that there prevailed elsewhere
the same earnest desire which animated their Lordships
to effect this important investigation. l'rivilege was a
reason assigned by a great number, and he believed that
with some that was a real ground ; but he had no man-
ner of doubt but that there was something more suasive
than this reason. He hoped their Lordships would
agree to this fill, however objectionable, in order
that there might be no loop hole for avoiding inquiry.
He was prepared to show, if a Committee of that House
had sat upon the Bill, that the highest names in the
country had been made use of—that intimidation had
existed to a most :rightful extent, which would make it
necessary that the matter should be inquired into in the
fullest manner ; and now that inquiry was taken away,
from that House at least, because it related to a tow
places only. He was of opinion that it would do 'as
much good, or nearly as much good as the ampler mea-
sure which had been prOposed. He had, he confessed,
very great confidence in the names of many of those
men whom he saw upon the Committee in the House of
Commons, who he was sure would perform their duties
with honour and credit. When this Bill should pass
those men would be armed with great powers ; and he
was sure they would exercise them to the benefit of the
country. Let them, then, pass the Bill without delay.
There was little time for the Committee to exercise their
powers before the end of the session. Let not the blame
lie at their Lordships' door. They had dune all they
could to assist the House in this object, and they ought
to progress, and to continue to aid them until the in-
quiry should be constituted. When a similar power should
be offered to their Lordships, he (Lord Brougha:n)
would again offer the aid of his humble assistance ; but
until real powers were given, he should esteem it as
worse titan a mockery to proceed any further in this
matter. The other House had refused to let their Lord-
ships have a copy of the evidence taken before them 'on
the Bribery Bill ; yet any one could purchase it for
sixpence. Their Lordships could not perhaps under-
stand the nice distinctions observed by the House of
Commons. Be it so. Let them keep their evidence, but
let not their Lordships act in the like manner. Let
them rather return good for evil, and by passing the Bill,
expedite as much as they possibly could this inquiry. In
conclusion, he begged to move that the Standing Orders
be suspended, in order that the Bill be committed and
read a third time.

The Earl of WICKLOW trusted that his Noble and
Learned Friend had not been correct in the reasons
which he had assigned for this Bill coming up to the
House. The Bill which his Noble and Learned Friend
had proposed and he (Lord Wicklow) had supported,
was for indemnity to witnesses before all Committees of
inquiry respecting bribery at the late elections. But the
present Bill related only to one election, and therefore
could not have been intended as a substitute for the Bill
sent down from them, nor could he think that the House
of Commons had treated their Lordships' Bill as his
Noble and Learned Friend supposed. He thought the
House of Commons, and influential Members of that
House (the Commons), thought that it was quite an in-
competent tribunal by itself to try these questions ; and
that if it continued to be the exclusive tribunal, the im-
morality and evils of all kinds would go on increasing.
But he did not think that there was any reason in the
case for the unusual course proposed, of suspending the
standing °Hers. He should, however, give the Bill all
his support, hoping, however, that their Lordships would
not agree to the present motion, for which there was no
necessity, as the Committee to which the Bill referred
had been a long time sitting, which showed that the
Commons themselves did not see any reason for particu-
lar haste.

Lord BROUGHAM replied. His Noble Friend op-
posite was .under a misapprehension as to the urgency of
the case. The Committee had not yet sat, and the cause
of the delay was that they were waiting for this Bill.
The object of his motion was to put an end to the delay,
that no blame might be attached to their Lo►dships
hereafter, as having frustrated the objects of the inquiry
by not passing the Bill more quickly.
Lord CAMPBELL had no objection to the suspension
of the standing orders ; but he did not think that the
House of Commons deserved the sarcasm which his
Noble and Learned Friend applied to its Members,
amongst whom he was held in the highest veneration
and esteem. With great deference to his Noble and
Learned Friend, he did not think that the public hud
lost much by the rejection of the clause which his Noble
and Learned Friend lamented. That clause, if it had passed,
would have been known to posterity as the "Brougham"
clause, and would have led to the most dangerous conse-
quences. With all respect for his Noble Friend, and
with unfeigned admiration of his talents, still he must
express his regret that his Noble and Learned Friend
had formed such an unfavourable opinion of that body
of which he had been so long an ornament.

Lord BROUGHAM returned with equal sincerity the
expressions of respect, which he had received with
pleasure from his Noble and Learned Friend. No one
could have made a better defence for the proceeding which
he had taken under his advocacy. But that defence was
supported by misapprehension and false reasoning.,
which was never surpassed even by his Noble and
Learned Friend himself either at that bar or in that
House.—(A laugh.) He meant such misapprehension
and false reasoning as an advocate falls into when he un-
dertakes the cause of his client with a determination not
to see anything but right in it.—(Laughter.) He (Lord
Campbell) seemed to suppose that there was no necessity
for this Bill, and that the House of Commons would
give indemnity without their Lordships' concurrence.
What? was it not known that if the House of Commons
gave an indemnity, the House of Lords would address
the Crown to prosecute ?—(Hear.) Was it not always
the case when questions of privilege were disputed, as
against the common law, such disputes were found capable
of adjustment only by the concurrence of both Houses ?
He disclaimed any intention to cast imputations on the
other House of Parliament. He confined his complaint
to that which was done with respect to this Bill. If
they had adopted that Bill, the Committee might have
been sitting for the last three weeks.
Lord CAMPBELL explained.

The motion was then agreed to, rind the House went
into Committee on the Bill.
The House resumed.

. The Bill was then read a third time and passed.
The other Bills on the table were forwarded a stage,
and the House adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 14.

The SPEAKER took the Chair shortly before 4 o'clock.
Sir H. WINSTON BARRON and Mr. WYBE took the
oaths and their seats for Waterford.
TOXTETH PARK.
On the motion of Sir H. DOUGLAS the Toxteth
Park Paving and Sewerage Bill was read a second time,
and ordered to be committee.

Lord G. SOMERSET moved, pursuant to notice, that
the parties should have leave to proceed with the Bill, on
giving notice in the usual local papers of the provisions
of the Bill, and that such notice be proved in the Com-
mittee on the Bill, and that such Committee should sit
on and after Monday, the 27th of the present month.—
Agreed to.