The Sun.
London, England, 1827-02-15 00:00:00

. . _ .
•el, f ti 4 chow to. do so. Depend upon it, as Dr. Johnson
says, when a man is going to be hanged, his faculties are wonder-
fully concentrated. If it be really true, as the defenders of Mump-
simus observe, that the Judge is the best counsel for the prisoner,
the prisoner will soon learn to employ him, especially as his Lord-
ship works without fees. All that we want is an option given to
the prisoner—that a man, left to adopt his own means of defence
in every trifling civil right, may have the same power of selecting
his own auxiliaries for higher interests.
It is impossible to put so gross an insult upon Judges, Jurymen,
Grand Jurymen, or any person connected with the administration
of justice, as to suppose that the longer time to be taken up by
the speeches of counsel, constitutes the grand bait.° the proposed
alteration. If three hours would acquit a man, and he is hanged
because he is only allowed two hours for his defence, the poor
man is as much murdered as if his throat had been cut before be
came into Court. If twelve Judges cannot do the most perfect
justice, other twelve must be appointed. Strange administration
of criminal law, to adhere obstinately to an inadequate number of
Judges, and to refuse any improvement which is incompatible with
this arbitrary and capricious enactment. Neither is it quite cer-
tain that the proposed alteration would create a greater demand
upon the time of the Court. At present the counsel makes a de-
fence by long cross-examinations, and examinations in chief of the
witnesses, and the Judge allows a greater latitude than he would
do, if the counsel of the prisoner were permitted to speak. The
counsel by these oblique methods, and by stating false points oflaw
for the express purpose of introducing facts, endeavours to obviate
the injustice of the law, and takes up more time by this oblique,
than he would do by a direct defence. But the best answer to
this objection of time (which, if true, is no objection at all) is,
that as many misdemeanors as felonies are tried in a given time,
though Counsel are allewed in the former, and not in the lat-
ter case.
One excuse for the absence of counsel is, that the evidence upon
which the prisoner is convicted is always so clear, that the counsel
cannot gainsay it. This is mere absurdity. There is not, and
cannot be, any such rule. Many a man has been hung upon a
string of circumstantial evidence, which not only very ingenious
men, but very candid and judicious men, might criticize and call
in question. If no one were found guilty but upon such evidence
as would not admit of a doubt, half the crimes in the world would
be unpunished. This dictum, by which the present practice has
often been defended, was adopted by Lord Chancellor Nottingham.
To the lot of this Chancellor, however, it fell to pass sentence of
death upon Lord Stafford, whom (as Mr. Denman justly observes),
no court of justice, not even the House of Lords (constituted as it
was in those days), could have put to death, if he had had counsel
to defend him.

To iraprove the criminal law of England, and to make it really
deserving of the incessant euloginm which is lavished upon it, we
would assimilate trials for felony to trials for high treason. The
prisoner should not only have Counsel, but a copy of the indict-
ment Ind a list of the witnesses, many days antecedent to the trial.
It is in the highest degree unjust that I should not see and study
the description of the crime with which I am charged, if the most
scrupulous exactness be required in that instrument which charges
me with crime. If the place where, the time when, and the
manner how, and the persons by whom, must all be specified with
the most perfect accuracy, if any deviation from this accuracy is
fatal, the prisoner, or his legal advisers, should have a full oppor-
tunity of judging whether the scruples of the law have been at-
tended to in the formation of the indictment ; and they ought not

to be confined, to the hasty and imperfect consideration which can
be given to an indictment exhibited for the first time in Court.—
Neither is it possible for the prisoner to repel accusation till he
wows who is to be brought against him. lie may see suddenly,
*tuck 9P in the witness's box, a man who has been writing him let-
ters, to extoit money from the threat of evidence he could produce.
The character of such a witness would be destroyed in a moment,
lithe letters were produced ; and the letters would have been pro-
-diced, of course, if the prisoner had imagined such a person would
been brought forward by the prosecutor. It utterly impossible
for a prisoner to know in what way he be assailed, and
against what species of attacks he is to guard. Conversations
may be brought against him which he has forgotten, and to which
he could (upon notice) have given another colour and com-
plexion. Actions are made to bear upon his case, which, (if
he had known they would hare been referred to), might have
been explained in the mast satisfactory manner. All these modes
of attack are pointed out by the list of witnesses transmitted to the
prisoner, and he has time to prepare his answer, as it is perfectly
just he should have. This is justice, when a prisoner has
ample means of compelling the attendance of his witnesses ;
when his written accusation is put into his hand, and he has time
to study it—when he knows in what manner his guilt is to be
proved, and when he has a man of practised understanding to
state his facts, and prefer his arguments. Then criminal justice
may march on boldly. The Judge has no stain of blood on his
ermine; and the phrases which English people are so fond of
laviiihing upon the humanity of their laws, will have a real foun-
dation. At pm sent this part of the law is a mere relic of the bar-
barous injustice by which accusation in the early part of our juris •
prudence was always confounded with guilt. The greater part of
these abuses have been 4rushed away, as this cannot fail soon to
be. In the mean time it is defended, (as every other abuse has
been defended), by men who think it their duty to defend every
thing which is, and to dread every thing which is not. We are told
that the Judge does what he does not do, and ought not to do. The
most pernicious effects are anticipated in trials of felony, from that
whichis found to produce the most perfect justice in civil causes, and
in cases of treason and misdemeanour: we are called upon to con-
tinue a practice without example in apy other country, and are
required by lawyers to consider that eustote as humane, which
every one who is not a lawyer pronounces to be most cruel and
unjust—and which has not been brought forward to general
notice, only because its bad effects are confined to the last and
lowest of mankind.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS—FEa. 14.
APPEALS.

The LORD CFLANCELLOR thought it right
to state to their Lordships, befo.re the Call of the House, that it was
not his intention to proceed to Pi selection till next week, but
in the mean time, measures had beil? tlken to carry on the busi-
ness of Appeals.

CORN LAWS.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY presented u peti-
tion from the Owners and Occupiers of Land in the Lower Divi-
sion of Caldicott, Monmouthshire, against any aiteration in the
Corn Laws.

The Earl of LAUDERDALE presented a Sitililar
petition from the parish of Kinnoul, Forfarshire; and a similar
petition from certain Farmers in the county of Ross.
The Earl of ROSSLYN presented a petition from
two places in Fife, praying for a revision of the Corn Laws. The
Noble Earl stated, that he presented the petition in compliance
with the wishes of the petitioners, but he wished it to be under.
stood that his opinions on the subject did not coincide with theirs.
Marquess CAMDEN presented a petition from the
Land Owners, Clergy, and Land Occupiers of fifty Parishes in
the Western Division of the County of Kent, praying that no
alteration might be made in the Corn Laws. The Noble Mar-
quess briefly supported, as we understood, the prayer of the peti-
tion, but he was nearly inaudible below the bar.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH presented a petition
from the Owners and Occupiers of 50,900 acres of land in York-
,ah:irs. His Lordship then moved for certain Returns, the nature
of which was not stated, which, he said, would elucidate the con-
dition oldie agriculturist. There was no opposition to the mo-
tion, and the Returns were ordered.
Lord TEYNEAM. presented a petition against
arg alteration in the Corn Laws, from a Hundred in Kent. His
Lewhip made. some observations which were not audible below
the Bar ; but
The Earl of LIVERPOOL replied that it was not
hts ietestioa to make known what propositi9us he was to submit
4,0 their ifr"l46 a the subject of the Corn Laws till he
orought them, ow the
day he had appointed, distinctly acid fully
More them.

Lord AUCKLAND
Laud Owners, Clergy, ~, presented a petition from the
ixae;ittemen, and other Inhabitants of
Chorley, in Lancashire
17,mvs. The Noble Lord said:l/I:or the abolition of the Corn
uttthis petition was to have been
from
by the Earl of Derby, b that Noble Earl was prevented
from attending by illness.
Air, Hutchinson, from the Bank of England,
ACCOIIII4 of the Rate of the Foreign Eicha presented an
ges from Jan. 1826
to Jan. 1627 ; an Account of all the Eseha Bills purchased
tpi the F,ianit 41t England, or on which they had
a I..gebn ety:
Within the same period ; also an Account of the advaneoedf ,m,oney
reeeired and expended by the Commissioners of thSeuNnlastio-n.
CATHOLICS.
Petitions
against of EXETER presented two
The Bishop
against any further concessiims to the Catholics •
Plympton St. Mary's ; the other from a parish;fleOnneamfrrn
name of
which we could not hear.
Lord KENYON presented a similar Petition
from some parish in Denbigh. His Lordship said, that tis
Petition, which spoke Ancient liiritish sentiments, w, or. i igr