House Of Commons, Tuesday...
The Times, 1824-04-07T00:00:00

Lord GRANV ILLE SU)EiERSb.t precisteeu-uPs w ,eu individual of the nanme of Walker, qtating that he vie.wed with as- tonishment ann alann, a bill, now in progress through the house, for erecting a new theatre at Cheltenham, and praying that lthe bilL might -not ass Sir ". LEMON presented a petition frsn; the inhabitants of Falmiouth, in favour of the bill for facilitAting wtie secovery of smalL debts. Mr. IMANSFIELD presented a petition from the .cordewainm of' the towvn of Leicester. against the combination lav;s. Mtr. LEGH.KECK pessunted a petition fiom the inhaitants Of Lutterworth prayingffor the abolition of negro slaveir ini fhec2llonies. Ilr. H ONYWOOD presented a similar petition fronm the in1)a- bitants of Tunbridge; and another from the licensed victuallers of Gravesend, against excise licences. illr. C. HULSE presented a petition from the corporation of lest Looe, in fe.vour of the abolition of slavery; and another of a similar nature from a parish in Cornwall. Sir J. NEMWPORT presented a petition from the inhabitants oe the parish of Ladgar, in 8leathshire, against the tithe.contposi- Lion act; aind several others of a like nattire from different parishes. Mr. STANLEY presented a petition from the journeyben evea- vers of Bolton, in l,ancashire, praying that no ilteratioht might take place in the la;vs relative to the exportation of rachinery. Lord A. HAM ILTON presented a petition, zigned by 27,0O inhabita,ts of :he town of Glasgow, praying that the house N.ofsld adopt measures for the abolition of slavcrv in the British celonies, ard at the same time afford indemnification to the planters. General GA SCOYNE observed, that this was the only one of the nuierous petitions which had been presented on the subject, in which the iust claims of the planters were at aU alluded to. Lord A: HAMILTON presented a similar petidon from the in- habitants of New Lanark; and another petition froon an individual of the nanme of Alexander Macdonald, complaining of having been falsely imprisoned by the magistrates of Inverness. The LORD ADVOCATE said that the facts stated in the peti- tion were totally new to him. He complained that the noble lord bad not consented to postpone the presentation of the petitioR, and there. by to afford him tbe Lord Advocate) an opportunity of inquiring re- spectine the truth of tle statement in it. He was thorouglhly per- suaded that wheni the facts came to be inquired into, it would appear that the mdagstrates of Inverness were not culpable. Ln2rd A. AiJA! ILTON said that the truth of the facts stated in the petition might be ascertained by certain documents, whieb he wvould at once move for if the noble and learned lord opposite would acquiesce i:n the motion. The LORD-ADVOCATE replied, that he thougbt the noble lord ougiht to postpone such a motion till the magistrates ef Lnver- ness had information of it. After a few words from Mr. KENNEDY, the petition was or- dered to le on the table. Mr. AldermanWOOD presented a petition fronm the houselholders of St. Botolph against the St. Catherine's docks biLT. Sir FRA NaIS B~ LAKE presented a petition from the taannes o Berwick aeainst the hides nnd slins' bill. Alr. ROCBERT SMITH presented a pctition against negro davery P-fo++~ Sitr N.W.R. COLBORNE presentedapetition from Ely,infavour of the county courts bill; and another from the same place, agaUtst the house and window tax. Lord WM 2,. BENTINCH presented a petition from M1ansfield, for the gradualabolition of negro slavery, as soon as it could beet- fected for the interest of the colonies, and upon a fair and equitabk compensation to proprietors. iUr. SYKZES presented a petition from Kingston.upon-HtIul, for a repeal of the house and window tax. allr. ESTCOURT gave notice of his intention to nioveon Friday next for leave to brin in a bil to alter the existint vagrant acts. Dr. CRESSET P.3LHAM postponed his motion on the suno- ject of occasionaly changing the seat of Parliament, from to-morroW until the 20thof Slay nlext.S b.R Mlr. BUTTER WOR'I'H presented a petion from St. Leonard's, Shoreditch, against negro slavery; and another from the Rev. G. Hamilton, of Roscren, in the coanty of Tipperary, complaining of the situation of curates in Ireland under certain circumnstances con- nected with the present mode-of ecclesiastical preferment, and par- ticularlv of that uxder the Bishop of Kilaloe. MIr. GOULBURN said, that during the episcopal.control of the pres2nt Bishop of the diocess, he had disposed of five p.eferments only, two of them wvere given to curates, and three to others who were most useful and exemplarvckrgymet, two of wlhom were cer- tainly connected with the bishJ famils... Bie rather thought that Dlr. Hamiltor. onceenieitainedaVry different opinion oftheiBishot of ilaloe fro:n that which lte insinuated at present. He bay written so at least, while thc reverend bis op was in his fermer diocess. M r. C. H. HUTCHINSON complained generally of the condi- tion of the cutates in the south of Ireland, who were very inaide- quately remunerated for arduou services? He called th; right hon. gontleman's5serious attention to the condition of these curates, who, though equal in education and ncquirements to the bishop, were very difzerentty treated. Sir J6111N NEWPORT wishedI to see a better distribution of the benefices among the curates thlis at present prevailed, when piu- r.lities of livings wvere so improperly disposed of.. Mr. BUTTERWORTH was tnxious that a royal commission should be ser.: to Ireland to-inquire into this branch of tht ecclesias- tical establishnment. He was sure that such a measure would-meet the support of the best wishers of. the church. He moved that the petition be orinted. -. Mr. GOUYLBUkN wisbed to have certain,passages expunged from the petition, beore he consented to itsapubltcaitou. - Mr. C-U1lCRAFTlsaid: thattlhepe tio0n,ot.bavingbeen read, Fe was hot prepared to say- whether it ought to bepiintes or not; but I thic he could say, that the -general complants. aginst the Church. of Ireland must be correct; for everv 4odyv.kine wthat the'.noney which contributed to its support -wv aaken fron the Catholt popu- lation of the cinintry, and inwsoine instances it 4as fountd gfficult to find t Projitstatlt ia parishes to. fillthieiofficeof.jall clm1 elk. W-ithi ;respect tol the residence of 'the-cerd .itteir 0ftlts''lie be- lieved that not- raore rtian700 dot of 3N ,2.;t ere. Tpjdefs4, w tbat, vithout alludin*- to or meanhjvtotref%txppn. .ny pWtr6lar Bzsloi rinvac iuite clear-there. Weas-somethmupr tisstcem..L-The petition ass .ordercd to-be printed.- SAifT 'PAX' -Mi 'tODB(USB tioved;fOta tetti 4f-tb numnber of xcxise prose..urrondunng4=he last si aT,broffeiice ast-the's alt same time, to -s~his tight h.noursbleltiendinear hima, whether,. in . the evetot4he tas beitg cotinUed, it 'would not be prEticable to amttW ome of thle teeteletlonit compAlaned of hit the tflod& OfC01' o The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied, that he couild not'antigipate wlhat would be the decision of the house upon the hDrioura'olegemtlemianl', motion, of whbihl he bad given notice, foxl a continuance of' this pLicular tax zbut he had. no difficultY in saying, ifli should be the wish of Parliament to contih.ue Jhe p)resenlt duty, he flttered himiself that some means might be dler vised for iclaxjng the feMrictions which arose out of the previons high duty, aind.swhich were considered necessary for the preservation of'the revenuie.' A-tall events, he~ should feel extremely'anxtinus to try every possible means of l'elaxing the severity: of the existing re- gwlatiort; futether than that he could not pledge himself. Mtr. CA.L0,AFT rose to express a considlerable degree of sur- prise at the nitice. which the bon. member (M1r. Wodehouse) gave Yesterday. He dia not at the timne feel it dlecorous to animadvert upon that notice ; but be rejoiced-exceedingly at the present oppor- 'tunity of deli'vering his.opitiion upon the subject. He was astonish- ed at the attempt nowv tocalhispon themi to bTeak th-ough a mostsolmn cmpat, Ty wichit was stipulated that the pre. sen duy soul exir onthedthof anary next (Hfear, hear.) The ay n whch his otie wa coduced looked as if the hon. membr hd soe brgai tomakeforthe public, which he deemed moreuseul tan hat o wich he ous stood commnittedl, for the abolition of th is ta.He was perfecy asoihdat the cool and cam manner in w ifhth Chancell ofteEcequer seemed to meet the bonourbe mem)er5.3 Vies- ,Taweetepol in fiu- ture to depend upon if this pledge weefritd Whtwe they io think, of any tbuturc stipulation ? Upon what woula~ they again re- lY ? (Hear,hbear.) What fai th couild the people be expected to hiave for any future act, solemnly promised to be done by the Parliament, if this plet!ge were so easily renounced, andathis odious tax conitinued?P And for what were they to violate their pledge ? For patrounage; for it wwas idle to talk of getting rid of the machinery of the restrictions-- thley could not be got rid of as longr as the revenue continued to be raited upon the article. I-e was iladl of this opportunity of early proclaliming to the hiouse and the country the nature of the attempt which was about to be made. He- was really astonished that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had hithierto conducted himself so liberally, so candidlty, and, he ;n.icht adld, so considerately, to- wards the country, sbould now appear in the slightest degree to lend 'himsel to a oareaeb of compact to which he was himsefapry He would contendt that t1he tax ought to be got rid of alto- gether. It was very easy to say that it was onlv two shillings at present, but the couintry might rely upon it, thsf if a particle of the tax were sufFerred to remain, a speedy opportunity would be taken, when the Government wanted money, of adding to the present tax. Instead of 2.s. it might again become 15s. (Hear.) M3r. WiODEHOUSE complained that the hon. member had t'hrown ouit a hint, that in proposing: the continuance of this mea- sure, he was acting in accordlance with the views of l'i.s Mlajesty's M1inisters. He denied the insinuation, and had distinctly inthunated, when he gave his, notice, that he was acting with hon. memnbers~ at both sides of the house i n hIds view of this subject. He respected as much as any man the faith of Parliament, but he disliked the use Of the'woTil ast a mere_ bugbear : the faith of Parliament could only be formed upon a deliberate view of the whole question. Mlr GORDON said that he felt interested in the question, as he representedl a part nf the county of Wilts in which there was a great ~consumptinn of salt. Mlr. BRIGHIT conceived thiat thie oppressionis under which the sutbiect laboured from this tax two y-ears ago, oughit to have been entirelyTremoved by this time, lie wVishecd to k-now whiat alterations the Chiancellor of thie Exclhequer hiad made in the excise regulations regarding salt since the duty of l0Os. hadi been remitted. Instead of 'telling them of the imiprovements which he hoped would take place, the right hon. gentleman ought to iniformi themi of the imiprovements which had alre-ady taken place. H4e considered that great benefit would be done to the fliheries by removing the remaining duties on salt, and lie therefore trusted that measures would be taken to com- pel Government to abandon them. Sir JORN WROTTESILEY trusted that Government would rernAt the remaining salt duties. lie niever knew any measu're give greater satisfaction to the couintrv than the remiission of that part of them which had been already abandoned. Mr. RUM BOLD said a fecw words, buat they were totally inaudi- ble in the gallery. Mlr. W1. 83M ITH informed the house, that though the existing duty of 2s. on salt hadl only been expected to prodluce 200,0001. to the revenue, itlhad producesi O0,000l. duiring the last year. Hfedid not think that any other tax could be devised, whichi would raise an equial sum with the same facility ; he, nevertheless, would not vote for its continuance, if it were necessary to keep up tlse machinery "or collecting it at the exVense whiich at presenit it caused to thec country. Mr. H. GURNEY said a few words in favour of remitting the r-marining salt duties. Lord VIlLTON felt considerable apprehension and regret re- specting the continuance of this tax. beca,ise he was convincedi that nr other tax could be equally injuriouis to thec country. He referred to the great increase which hiad taken plaee in the consumption of salt, as a proof of the benefit which the country hiad derived from the remission of the MO. dtitv. Sir .M. IV. RIDLEV'ewas of opinion that the house, after re- 4licing the duLty of 10s., hiad nothing else to do than to reduice the remaining duty Of2. It would t7hus strike the article "1salt" out of the lINt of articles which were subjected to taxation. The tax on salt, in his oninion, placed fetters upon all liberal principles of trade. Mr. IUMIE wished to put a question to the Secretary of the Trreasury regrding the excise laws, which were perpetually inflict. lug grievances upion the subject. In the last session of Parliament he had pres.ented several petitions, complaining of the oppressive naturt' of those laws. The honi. gentleman readily admitted the hardships to whichtheyvgave rise, and assured Ihim that in the course of this session hie would submit a bill to the house for the purpose of consolidatingz the excise laws, and doing away with the grievances which they Occasioned. He wishedI in know wghether thle house was to see thn~ pledge fulfilled in the course of the present siession ? Mr. H ERRI ES, though nor prepared so enter into a discussion on the excise la,ws at presenit, had fio objection to inform the hon. membe" for Aberdeea, that a learned friend of his would introduce, in the course of the s-ssion, not one bill, but several bills, to conso- lidate the existing system ef excise laws.. The task was one of great labour; antil he therefore trustedl that the house wyould make some al'owanrec for his Majesty's CaoverolMent, if they wvere not able to introduce the bill till sorns timne after Easter. Mr. 11. A. TAY'LOR declared the excise laws, as they niow ex- isted, to be full of inconvenience. At the samne time he adm-itted thtat there had beceii for years past in the TKreasury a very strong de- itire to alleviate as muchi as pos!ible the grievanc-es which they, oc- casioned. (Hear.) Mr. TrREM1A.YNE comaplained of the mannier in which sinug.. gling was at present punished. The penalties attachied to it wvere so enormous, that in most cases they could not be levied. The offend- tog parties were then committed to prison, andi were allowed to live ther in complete idlenes until the period of time was expired whlilch Government considlered to be equivalent to the pay-ment of the penlalty. He thouglit that it would be a great i-sprovement to pu. rdish the smug-zler by hari labour. The CH ANCEL,LOR of tli,. EXCHE-QUEt dlid not co:sceive 'oiinselfanswerable for every objectioni which couild he made against the lawrs for smuggling. The objection which the honnurabte mnemnber had just urged against thenm had presented itself to his iiiiud;, but ihougoa it might be de,-irable to consider whethier souse ottser punishmAent than a pe,cuniary fine should not be attached to the offense at smuggling, he could not pretend to say at present ihat it wouldi be advisable to attach the punishment inflicted for misdo- Ineai,31'1rt to offences a-gainst the excise laws. After a few observations fromi Colonel DAriEgs and M1r. CAL- C g.\5,FT, the mnotion wvas agreedl to. Mi IUME presented a petition fromn the school-assistants of Great Britain, praying that the hoase would reseat them from, thie disrespe,ct ili,to which they ha'l fallen by enacting somec measure to compel all persons who pretendied to g;ive instructiton to uindergo alma previous examiination. The lion. miemiber observed that lie coun,d not support thle piayer of the petition. Mr. HUME then presented a petition from the journeymen shoe- makers of Dundee, against the consibitation laws. Mlr. PHILIPS put a question to the Chancellor ofthle Exchiequer which was; very imperfectly hieard in the gallery, owing to the low eone of voice in whirls thle hon. member spoke. Wie understoodhbins to say, that in consequeace of a duty of fits per cent. be~ing imposedl upntimber imported into this coun try in foreign ships,beyondl that Pai upon tiuiber imoorted intO it in British sghips, aduty o,Ffive lere zent. bad beets also placed in Pruissia uponi British cottons imported j,.. o it in British vessels, beyond that whiich was paid upon the sautle goooL imported in Pruissian vessels. He understood that an ar. rangeoilent had been made between the Eng:lish andl Prussiani Go- vernmenits, by whlichi an eqiualization of duties liad been mnutually agreed to. If that wetre so, why had iout an order in council beer, iiisued, ann4lKincirig the fact ta) the mercantile worldI? The CHA21CELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied, that his right hon. friend.,j.e President of the Board of Trade, was much more comptenttha,he w,sa to answer she question of the hon. memnber. A.,, however, his righlt hlon. friend was not in the hiouse, and a% he himstelf knew somnething: Zbp the matter, he hiad no objection to give the hon. mnember the an5Wey he reqeiired. There certainly had bean discussions between the English and Prussian Governmenits, respecting the duties which wets mutually levied by them upion all foreign ships entering into their resPective ports: and there certainly had been an arraingement agreed croon, by which England and Prus- cia.mtialy elasd ac oiie foo tos dtis.The hon. mem- ber a,;ked himn, whiy nio order of' council had been issued upon this subject,? He would inform hihls, that the treaty whic albe agreed upoin. had not yet been ratified by the Government of this country, and that it wvas not usual toissie'anv ordier of council until the treaty to whlich it refecrred had receiveil a forniial ratification.. Mlr. PHILIPS said that lie understood th-at it had been ratified. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER zepcated that it hiad not. Mr. G. LAM1B presented a petition frnni several persons who11 had been accustoaed to serve as jurors at the Old Bailey, praying that persons accus,ed of felony miKht, be allowed to defend thermselves by cousnsel.-Laid uponl the table, and ordered to be p-rinted. D)EFENCE OF FBLONS BY 'COUNSEL. Air. G. LAMB said, that the bill which he now asked leave to lbring in, thougzh certainly it was not a novelty in the hiouse, did not resenible the bill for the samne purpose which had formerly been brought in by his hon. fr'iend the mnember for Galway. It was not in consequence of any difference of opinion between himself and his shoes; on the contrary, it was by his desire, and at his particular rc. quest, that he now came forward 'vith the present measure. His uno. friend had so dexterous a method of getting bills through thehouse, that be had, perhaps, deie "wrong intaking this bill outof his hands; but, as he had underken the offce of piloting it th?ough the bouse, he would shortly explain the points in whicb it differed fram thc bill fotmerly introduced by lis lion. friend. The pritci- pal points of diffirence were these-his hon. friend confined the al- lowance of counsel to such irisoners as were indicted for ea.tial crimes- he extended it to dll prisoners whatsoever. His hon. friend had in bis p inted bill-perhaps lie might bave intended to alter it in the committee-inserted a clause, authorizing the judge to assign counsel to the prisoner as in cases of treasop. He (iMlr. Lamb) manle oo assignmeDt of counsel by the judge necessary, but rave the prisoner the same liberty to select counsel to speak for him, as he now possessed in cases of misdemeaneur and of civil action. He was well aware, thaL in proposing theae alterations in our cri- yninal systep,i, he was raining counter to all the prejudices of the professIos to which he had formerly had the honour to belong : but e proposed them to the attention of the-house, because he thought that thcennds o?fcrimiial justice could not seell be attained writhout themn. Ile lknew, that though the profession of the law were in ge- neral hostile toe the change which hte wished to make, there were tnany strong opinions in favour of it given by those who had long belonge4 to it. Every inlearned person that attended our criminal coutts was stTuck by. the urfairnessof our present practice. The first comment which they made;upon it was-"Why do you not give the prisoner the same libcrty to address the jury by counsel that you give to his prosecutor?" And in aU the discussions which he had heard benveen learced and itnlearned persens on tbis point, it scme how or other happenied that the unlearned Person alwiay&-Atablinea Ithe better of dieA trflnent. H'aving sowr statedl what made agatinst his ProOPsitiont Tal waula pro.&t state what nmtde for-4t. Mi h irtp e, li a h pnO oi' Blackstone in hisfavoir, andain the nex he had the ticiintp,tatIC6 of the constitution itself. He shouldadwell shortly on 'tlii, btanch of the subject; for though it was-dry, it was too imliort&if~ ba.pa1%_, ed over entirely in sildoce BladketOnel, ap commentuinjruiol1 Ahe rule ths.t no counsel shaill be allowed a prisoner iaio hIs, tralUo the general i%shiein, ani capital criine, observes '. that It is not PA all of a piec~ with th'e rest of the humane itreatthelt of pr1;gqners3sy the Englishi law. 16a ujsd'n what face of reason c-an thiat. as~1%ta`nce be deniedI to save the life of a man, whicah yet is allowed hi,ti in Prose- cutions for every petty, trespass ? Nor, indeed, is it, strictly speaik-. ing, a part of ouxr ancient law, 'or theilMirroua baving bbserVed the necessity of couinsel in civil suiits, "1who knowlhow to- forward end defend ilse cause by the rules of law% and( customs of the retlm~," immediately subjoins, "1anid more necessary are they fbr defence upon indictments and appeals for felonyv than upo-n other Yenial causes.-" He then conitended that till the reign of Edward 1. counsel were allovwed to speak in behalf of the prisoner on all cases of private wrongz. The hon. gent. then proceeded to observe, that, until a late Period, the righit ofE emnployiug counsel &nd other privileges, in casei of high treason, beltonged only to the ?Jrown : but s'ince the passing of the treason acts, the Crown. gave up that particular righit, which it hadipreviously retained for its protection, and thie accused was allow. edlto have the benefit of counsel. Still, however, in cases of felony, the private prosecutor only had the right to call in counsel to his aid- thlat advantage was der,ied to the party prosecuted. Thtis was a strasqge anomaly, when the Crowr had given, up a similar right What he called uponi the house to do at present was, to fill up a ga~ between the proceedings in cases of high treaton and of felony, and to allow generally the employmeut of counsel. Looking to those sages of the lawv who adivocated the existing sys-. tem, he found them, in his opinion, more in favour of its abo- lition, in. conisequence of the absurd reasons which they ad. duced in its behalF, than those who actually oposed the prac. tice. The reason given by Lord Coke inspo Vo h ithholdiini the aid of counsel in cases of high treasn anahc fterward, defended by other lawyers, was cleal laddw b h arl 01 INotting!ham in the case~of L-ord Co nals ieagment was, "that thle fouler the crime is, the cleae an lie h roof ouighl It'o be. No other good reason can be ienortelws reflastrw , counsel where life is concerned, tha tatheidneon whiel, the indivilual is soughbt to be condemned most be so perfectly de Icisive that all thle couinsel in the world caninot painsay it." Thit Iundoubtedly was the best reason that could be assigned for the prac. tire. Still,hIowever, lie wotld say, let counst-l beemployed onesac sidle-let the-m advance all that they couldi for andI qainist the ac. coosed-let the testimony be sifted and examined thoroughly; and, after 'ill thiis if the evidence be strong andi clear-if it were of tbti description a'lluded t6 by Lord Nottingham, tlhe result would just i?( the same as if no counsel had beeni employed, andi the public satis, faction would be much greater. Thedoctrinelaid down on the trial of Cooke, the regicide, was similar to that which he lhad just ad. verted to. The Juidge there observed-" That whiclh I have to sa, is this, that the evidence is so clear that every one whio hears it etn. derstands it. It is called evidenceebecauseitis evident. It is onq r.easor why counsel 3hall not be employed in matters of fact, that the mattel issuplain that every one, b,oth jury and commissioners, who hear it. muitlieconvinced thiat Ohe prisoner isjustly eonvicted." Howeversape- ciousand feasible such a dloctrine might be, it was undoubtedly fraughi with hardship. 'But itwas-said, that the judge was always counsel foi the defendant. HeIcthoughit it was most unfortunate thatwLrd Ophie, ot anv otlier sage of the law, should hlaye pronounced such a doctrine The Court could not be counsel for the prisoner: it was thei duty of the Court to,act equally, andI impartially for nil parties broughi before it. (hlear.', On this point lie would refer to a speech made Iby Mr. Whiitelocke, during the timne of the Commonwealthi, in thn course of a debate which tnok place on a motion to exclude lawyert frem sitting in that hiouse in all time to come. The name of the per- son who broughit forward that most horrible motion, if he might be allowed so to term it,was not given; but it appeared that miany obser. vatious had been miade in reprobation of the practiee of not allowinp counsel to speak for prisoners, and Mlr. WVhitelocke thiqs c.-pressed hiimself :-" In a case of a sixpenny trespass, you may have the aid iof coui-.el ; hut where the life of a man is concerned, no) lawyer it allowedi to speak for him." It was said, that the Judges went counsel for the prisoner, and ought to see that he took no wrong ; bul were they not equally counsel fo~r all the parties ? (Hear.) He (Mr, l,aimb) thoughit it would be a very goodl thinig if they could erase fromevey lgalworktheabsrdloctrine that the judge was counel or he rune. Terewasan nstance on record, in whicha judg wa soinflencd b thi dotrie, that, after a ca-ieof child. murdr hd ben istncty pove, h diected an acquittal, because the ounel or te posehtio ha nelected to ask, whether tin chil wasmaleor emal-tha fac haing been specified in the in- dictment. In ?another case, wihere tejgePut. certain questions. in order to render the evidence compee,teprisoner said, " Ah my Liord, if You were really my cousl yuwould not have asked thiose questionis." In booth instances h iuto of the juadge was a most painful one. In Dyer's Reports it was laid down, "that wt (tlie c-ourt) are to be counsel for you (the prisoner), so far as to set that all things, onA all sides, are conducted wvith impartiality." Ii was the duity of' the judge to take care that nothing but public j'us- tice was administerea ; and in his opinion, the judge who abowed all the anxiety and astuiteness which berame alhiredI counsel, was nom performinig hiis duty properly. If, however, the jutdge actually wished to become the prisoner's counsel, he bad not the mneans, IWhat infonsiation had the judge to guide him, except tbe deposi. thonsF of the presecutor ? Many circumstances, known onily to tht prisoner, might be mnost material to his defence, if counsel wert emnployed for him, of whichi the judge must be entirely- ignorant. 'rh j~dgewoud rceie n inormtin out of court; and he siust be etirly nacuaitedwit vaiou pontswhichi, in cross-exami- naton,migt e o gratimprtaceto the accused partv, How, then cold te jdge e cunse fo theprioner? Ile wouldI admi, fr th sae ofargmen,that an impartial judge migh beof orebenfitto he risner than a retained coun- sed ; but they ought not to forgt that the impartiality of the judge mighit also militate against the prisoner. In the case ol Gudeii, whiich occurredI in thne reign of Elizabeth, the prisoner ask- ed, " How many jurorsi have I a right by law to challenge ?" The answer of the judge was, 1 iNay, I canniot tell you thart-I sit here to judlge, and not to advise." In Sir J. Perwott's case, which hap. pened in the same reign, a similar answer was given, Therefore, if' lie admitted for a moment that there were tiines when the judge was Preferable to a counsel, he muist also observe, that there had been times very different indeed from the present, but whichl might retuirn, welien prsoners were obI;gcd to depend on the tender mercies of Chiief Justice Jefl'ries, Judge Page, or Mr. Justice Alybone. He hiad hitherto onily applied himself to answer suchi s'tatements as he found in books in defence of this practice. He would now come to the immnediate question iteelf. rils learnied friends no doubt would observe, "1All you have stated is very, well: but what practical evil has resulted from the present Sys- tem ?" Here hr begged to say, that there was one point which ap. peared to him to beeof no little importance- He did not considler it enioughi that a system of criminal law should be really just and im-. partial, withiout it was fully impressed on the people that it was to. (Hfear heaLr) In coming to this part: of the question, he felt him- self a little embarras~ed, because, if he referred to recent eases, it m-ighit be supposed that he intetidedi to throw some sale on the ad. nminis:tration of criminal justice, whichi, however, be wouldl say, notwithstanding this defect, was, as it ought fo be, the admiration of the world. ( Fear.) The eases, however, which he wouild select, wvere those in which the prisonier laboured under difFiculties, and was expse t inusic ofth mstalabe nature. What was the ol. jec ofallwin peson todefnd hemelves ? Was it not, that, as faras ,isibe, hei inerstssholdbe protected ? But was that the ase,whe nie ofinfeiormindandtalent were opposed to skil- ful ndasle dvoates Acthe imeof the pasting of' the treason billIs, the Attorney-General adimitted that they were prepared to give the accused an opportunity, so far as possible, of being defendedby men equal in ability to those by whom they were prose. cuted. This could not formnerly be done, undler the cumn- mnon circumstances, of every day oeccurrence, of mete age, infirmity, idiocy, insanity,o ignorance, of tise Prisoner on trial. Plrovision was now m..ade oai that point in cases of hligh treason, but with regard to felony the defect still remained. What did Lord Lovatt sa.y on this er pont? "If you do not allow me counsel, my lords, it is impossible for me to make any defence, by reason of my infirmilty. I do not see, I do not hear. I came up to !the bar at the hazard 'of my life. I have fainted several times, I have been up so early, ever since four O'clock this morning. I there- fore ask, for assistance, and ii You dlo not allow me counsel, or suich aid as is nece-ssary, it will be irmpossible for me to make any dle- fence at all." He (Mr. lianib) alluded particularly to this case, because, thoughi Lord Lovatt's guilt was evident, yet the matnagers of time imnpeachiment felt so strongly the injustice which 'was done, that, by the bands of Sir IV. Young, time chief manager, a bill was brought inte, Pa-rliament to allow counsel to plead for per- sons impeached by that house, which was not previously the case. After that, he found it said by writers of somne niote, that the pro- ceedings against the old, the double traitor, Lord Lovatt, clearly as w hnis guilit wt,,as , maifested, were rather harsh. In cfyses where offence was committed uandler circumstances of insanity, was it fitting to call on the individual to stare how it originated, andI how it acted on him, with respect to the immiiediate matter of charge ? But it was s,carcely so bad to 'refuse the aid of counsel where there was actual insanity, as wvhere that species of infirmity existed which, thought it impgaired his faculties, did not prevent the accused from pleading. Tb is situation seas well described by Mr. Peere Wil- liants4, after the trial of Lard IVinton, when he observed, " I have nothiing else to say of this unhappy lord, who is not insane enough to be exenmut fromn the operation of the law, nor sane enough to do Ihimself seriTice in any respect whatever," The ill efFects of com-. Ipelling individuals to construct and deliver their own defence weic Iobservable on many,occaionis. Tke efforts.oF a rman, under an ac- cusation, which drew the public attention towards himn, if at all ingenious, had a fearful effect on the weak and uninform. ech. flowever guxilty the individual mighit be, his boldness became the theme of gratulation amongst those who mistook au hardened carriage for trpe bravery. One case of this kind, end a case of much celebrity, had receiitly occurred-lie allud- ed to the conduct of the ruffaian who had disgraced the county of Hertford by the murder of his friend, and who had caused so many poltodsrace themselves by the istupid admiration they had besowd n isdefence. (Hear, hear.) He would ask whiether that culprit, pendinig his ttial, was not very much buoyedt up, not with1 the hoPe of an ac-uittal, buit w-ith the idea that t he -u E tirade w'ich he had written would be heard rith interest and woadd live when he had paid the penalty of his crime. He hoped to die writh some degree of eclat; and hc set off against the crime of murder the reflection that his exit would be talked of throughout the country. This was therefore to institute a criterion for the appreciation ef cri- minal conduct, different fronm that which should exist. It was to cause the measureof guilttobe estimated, not according totheqquan. tity of proof, bit accordin to the ability of the prisoner. There was one question which he did not think would be urged substantially and by itself on this occasion; anod ypt he believed, from conversa- tions which he had on this subjec, that it weighed considerably with some persons in their view of tLe law. He alluded to the effect which an alteraton in the law would haveas to the occupation of the time of tie Judges. He believed, the line of Pope, that " Huugry Judlges soon tleir sentence sign," never was justifei by any occurrence. But if be were told that a saving of time of the judges was the only re.aon why this practice shouid be continued, thuse who held such a doctrine might be ac- cused of favouring such an opinmon. It was said, that the ob5erva- tions ofa counsel, in defence of a prisoner capitally charged, would go for nothing. That might be; but he could safEly say, that while le practised at the bar, le had kmown many cases, in ehich, if the aid of counsel had been allowed; the ver. dict would have been much more satisfactory to the public. St had laid on their table a petition, in Which several persons who were frequently engaged as jurors in eCiminal cases, stated, that, they would feel nouch more ponfident in giving their verdicts, if prisoneri were allowed the full benefit of counsel instead of restricting the employment of learning, ingenuity, and talent, to the, pronecuing parties. Could any counsel, however candid.vlien stxdngacease,yvoid stretching the matter a littletoo far, or. refriai entirely from 4rawing any unfair inference? - Let it bere&oUected, that in cotS Ci- c,umtantlAl evidelic, there pal*ys re% namer 4 bkre *d6fslijty 'thAt the individual miglht 'be innocenlt. 7J.*hat elrcurnsanco' hiad Plw&X4sa.great ,,q -on hepulC-' , adheirould, by the 4 ~ip ~uie o cs'-ceused...bF' givinfg him' th&t:ecaa40t&~ aiie-ai x, ~sthat Possibility,- to the' smallesmt VtiiPt-_ Agithe Ci5tsofivflow-t is - Justice, he-repeated; 'could not be done i ld~ Thfe piubli c: In general -and those who wilnessea crimiitiiil ts4, woulditnot-be- satisffed,uolegg the accuied paity. had lse privilege of-spealting by h:scoutisel. Muchmrtght be. said iboutj2iNe ditfiger of Ltlrding ,usd e xcitlng Ithe passions 'by the: foriep.xf el q*_:;e but,- he asaktd, wras tiot -the danger the sam-e in -cases.of miiderneemrour? A Many char-ges, of misdemeanour con.signed -aman,to infhany, nd cust a,Lblot on 'his posterity. -In cases of that, kind, diii not th~ witnesses, the -counsel, atnd thte judges, feel as mlucba as -theyr possibly couid d4o if the charge were one af,. fecting Ilfe and death ? Bait it appealted, that in sucli cases, the judgei, counsel, and witnesses, rest-rained their feelings and passons. If,it were sot, why should - they not act with equial dis. cretion when the-charge was-capital ? He could not see any cvil that was likely to result from allowing counsel to plead for persons ch.arged with felony: on the contrary, he conceived it would be an improvement in the administration Of justice, whtich would be most satsfctoyto. the public, and therefore he shiould move. '; for leave io bring in a~ bill to allow persons prosecuted for felony to be defenaed. by couinsel s in the case of misdemeanour."1 ftl r. J. H. NOiRlf said, he had been always of opinion, that the administration of criminal justiPe was one of the noblest and proudestboasts of this country; and if there was any department of that administration whichi particulRrly challenged his approba. tion, it was that very department, the system of which thep hon. morver now attempte4 to alter. if he had had the Power of adlvising the hon. gent., he should have directed his attention to the manner it, which the law was administered, before he ventured to make this proposition. He should have requested him to mark, the caution by which the different proceedings were distinguished; he should have pointed out to him the anxtious care with which every secies of evi. dence was excluded from the jury-box, unless, from its own in- trinsic weight and valute, it was calculated to produice an im- prsion on the mind; andl above all, he should have charged the honourable member to observe that presiding spirit of humna- nity which crowned the whole-that presiding spirit whichl, as it were, induced the judge on the bench to rebuke the ste-rn severitt' of justice. Wbha~whs the actitll state of the law ? By, custom, which had now become sacred, thd prisoner wa-s allowed counsel, to exa- mnine and cross-examine witneMes. The Judge was bound to consi- der himself, to a, certain extint, and within the rule of law, counsel for the prieonpr. It was his duty to see that no observation was made thiat could unfairly prejudice the prisoner's case. It was also the duity of the judge carefNlli to note down the ev'idenice offiered, to treasur6 it up for observation, and to point out those parts of it which mighit appear beneficial tot the prisoner. Beyond this, when the j6dge had summed up, and stated hiis imnpression of the evi- dence, h'e was l~o,4nd to tell the jury that, if. - ny qf themi- fet the least rea"onabli doubt, they must acquit the party accused. Another rule of Bnglish law wits, that the jury, must be unanimous, or the prisoner cmuld not be found guilty. What the hon. member contendedI for was, a speech to evidence on behalf of theprisoner. H-edoubted whether thchon.inember had con, sidered tbt probable effects of suchi anialteration. As the law stood, the counsel for the prQsecuition felt himnself- compelled to adhere to the nakedl facets he was instruicted to brinig forward. He felt hiimself bouisd to do so by an obligation seoiiger than an obligation of law-by the obligation of mercy and of honour-by,his regard for~the bench--and by his respect for the opinion of his brother barristers. The hon. member, however, wished thlis cold (letail to be replied to by the prison'er's counsel in a styfe of the strongest, warmest, and most animated elo%uence. Every thing was to he concedled to himn. Ae wrould be admitted, nay, he would be bound, to struiggle withi the evidence adduced, to strain every point by whigh lie might convince the jury; and if not convinice, at least atllect then,. This would produce an effect totally different from what the honi. mem- her anticipated. Whben the counisel for the prosecution found that he wAs likely to haye a brother mounsel treading on his heel, would he confine himgelf to a muere pl statement of facts? WVouild he remiain quiet when h.e s.aw the ecounsel for the prisoner egerting all his eloquence, winning a reputation, and establishing his fortune ? It was impossible. He, too, would exert all his faculties, and the effct of thie alteration would be exactly this-to change the so4er scene of a court of justice into an arena for two legadl combatants, and the stake for which thiey played would be the life of man. (Hear, hear.)' Besidesi, if a- leamed jude, resdin ata tial fond hata certain duty, (that of at- tendng o te inerets f th ~rssur),whIichi he formerly was call- ed n t exrcie, ad evoveuon noter, he wouldl probably, how- evegret he trugl wih is eelng mihtbe, shrink fromi any inteferede.The onouabl memer mghtsay, that the advocate would do fuljsiet h rsnrads,doubtless, he would, to theutmest exeto i oes ut woul that whichl he stted go o te jry-ox iththesam weghtof a~uthority as if it had fallnfmth jug? haer the intrin'sic merit and valu ofhsrmrsmgtb,te ol tl ercie ithi a good deal of dob n eiain eas,ltte eee oper- tineaqt, they would still be osdrda h bevtoso paid advocate. He was also cran htiinn ae u ftn the judge would feel himself cleontbcmeheavae.Fre- qacotly, after an able speechl froin a gentleman at the bar, thie jutdge would be obliged to repel the force of arguments niot strictly bearinig on thte sutbject, whiceh the counsel had pressed on the jury. ife would, perhaps,press considerations beyond the bounds to w'iich they should strictly be confined; the jury would give their 'verdict under the impression of what they had last heard, andl thus much injury would be donie to the'prisoner in numerous cases. These were reason, which carried strong conviction to his miind, that the -proposed alteration would not bring along with it all the adivantage whc h ooregentleiman expected, so fatr as the interest.s of humanity and of the prisoner were concerned. But a sMore important question was, perhaps, the effect it would have on the initerests of justice. The learned gentlemnan then l.rocecded to argue that the speceghes of counsel would, in m-any instance, have the efiect of raising doubts in the mninds of jurors of weak under- standings. AVa,sit fitting, wheie aman of weak mind was on ajury, that apratiged counsel shoutld address himself for two or thrtee hours to conifinn a half-fo-ned doutbt? But an arg-ument infinitely stronger than any of those he had adducred was, that the alteration was not called for by the voice of the people. Mr. Justice Bilackstone's book, fromn which ithe hen. gen- tleman had quoted a passage, had been published for upwards of 60O years. It was in the hands of persons of all classeg; but thiough the Passage on which the hon. gentlemani so much depended had been before all England for so many years, it was only now disco- vered. that it was at all necessary to introduce this innovation. Here, the, anthevoceof hepepleagint Sir WV. Blackstone. The hon getlean ad resnte on peiton) us favour of the change; but he eope o Engandwer no inthe habit of declaring their opinins b a snglepetiion. Somedilettante lawvyers, or diletane phlospher, mght ishfor this alteration-, but the quesionwas hadit econiened tsef to the siense of the people ? Th case of Pao had been itrinsupport of the utility of admit- ting an address from counsel heethe evidence was pretty nearly balanced as to the guilt or innocence of the prisoner; but didhonour. able memibers forget that the prisoner had already a shield under such circumstances, more powerful than the assistance of any couin- sel could give himi, in the law which directed the jury to acqutit, where they entertained a reasonable doubt? Anothe~r -instance ad- verted to (Thurtell's) was onie fresh in every man's recollection ; but certainly it proved nothing in f avour ol' a prisoner's deriving benefit from the soDechb of counsel. Fortuniate was the prisoner generall. who couila find a counsel possessed of suchi talents as the pii.' sonerhimself ins that case hadl displayed;, but certainly as far as acquittal was concerned, his defence had been ineffectiave. The hon. and learned member concluded by contending, that between the practices of the eivil and criminal law there could be no analogy, and hattheargmet of the hon. genutleman (,Mr. lamb) would go (incriina la) t jutif th deaysand all the appeals upon ap- peas t whch he usnes evn o th Curt of Chancery was sub. ject fo thereaons e hd sated an seeng o pesenit grievance which calciforentedv.e shoul opposethe1bring1.'-inug in of the bill. Sir JA ES MACNTOSH esiredno better vindicator of the English criminal la'eeal,tan the hon, gentleman whto had last sposen ; hut tengihcminal law, generally, was nit the subject before the huetwldscaLrcely be denied by those who thought it right-that a prisoner shuld defend himself at all, that he was entitled to the means of defeniding himiself fullv and ade- quately; and in three fourths of the criminal cases 'which were tried, this could only be done by the assistance of counsel. He appae upntis questioni to the practice of the kingdion of Sctland,' and of the United Statesi ;f Amierica, at the present aomient. In both of those countries the right of a fail hearing by counsel-not of a hearing by counsel under connivance, like that -which took place in England-the right of an uninterrupted hearing by counsel was allowred to felons; and any inconvenience which arose from that indulgence he hail yet to become aware of. The lion,. gent. opposite had introduiced an imaginary- dialo us in the course of hsis s.peech--the questions atnel answers bowever,hard. ly being fairly put for the party who was SUPPOSeAl to be opnos- ing him-with a view to elucidate his opiniions i.pan the principle in debate; bat if he (Sir J. Mlacintosh) wvere to supp3se himself holding a dialogue writh a forei.gner upon the criminal law of Englanfd, and tellng thiat foreigner that our law permittedi an ac- esised person to take the benefit of counsel in c-ases of treasoni or misfiemeaniour, yet withhbeld the same advantage from him if he happened to 'he charged with felony, he really should hardly be able to help anticipating an avkward demand from his interlo- ctutor, as to what was thie pecuiliar intent or the policy of such a law. Now the policy certainly would be a question rathier difficult to answer. As to the oiigin, too, of the peculiar enact- menit, all parties mighit not be agreed ; and, wvith rt-pect to the reasonableness, he would cite an opinion of sonic curi- osity to the house in' a moment. Sir John Hawles, the Solicitor- GenealotWill4m 11 tratedthe rohiitio aganst felons em-~ ploingcouselto efeia isei, s hvin orgintedout of the ge- nerl pvery o suh prsoa ad teirinailiy s py fees; and thouht hat,in his ay,a cstomhadgrow upto e treated as a law.The, fo ano iion ponthesens ofthelaw, the house shoul hea what~ad een sid o it b Jude Jefferies -an indivdual whom no one probal ol accuse of be- ng a speculating or dilwfantm lawyer. Judge Jefferies, who, whatever had been Ibis vices, had been a man of the sound- est and most vigorous inteUect; and, indeed, it might be said, almost to the disgrace of comprehensive understandings, that when he was not intoxicated, or suffering under disease, or dis. tracted byparty fury, a morepowerful judge than that atrociousand infamous man hail scarcely ever sat upon thc bench ;-Judge Jeffe- ries, upon the trial of a non.conforming clergyman namued Rose- wald, (a kind of offender whom lie ivas nmt so the habit of sprink- ling with rose,water', had said, speaiking of the very law which was now in question before the house, " It is a hard case, certainlyv, that a man may havecounsel, and his witnesscs sworn, if 'ie is tried for a twopennv trespass; andl that yetthe same is refused to hbin in a case of treason -or felonrv,which affectshis life." Now it was worth while to observe, that Sir 'Wm. Jefferies ranked the grievance whicb he (Sir J. AMacintoshN was opposing.- with two other grevances, which the poliey of the law had since removed. He agreed in all the praise which the hon. andlearned member opposite had bestowed upon the crimtinallaw of England;-he said " upon the criminal law," because be by no ueans included the penal enactments in the same measure of approbation; but the criminal law had not always been inthestateinwhichwenow saw it. For a long time the cri- nilnal' law had borne traces of the barbarity of" the age in wbich it had been constructed. Let it be rememnbered, that the 'refusal in cases of felony to allow witnesses-to bcvsworn for the pri- soner, which, as it regarded the effect upon a jury, was tahtamount to allowing-sim no witnesses- at all-that the refusal-te-frnish any means ofcompelling the attendance of-witnesses under 'such'citcum- stances, which-wasdn fact leaving the -prisoner witlioit defence,. usiless wherd persona came-voluntarly to assist lhitdLd:at' the fimak' ins ajury' fnishAl6e by a 1" wit of attai}t,' ifrthey refurned a " talsevtrdic*'?.Vlit-was-called, against tde-King; and not punish- able by any process if they found a false vexdictagainst tbe prisoner lest iN bEretembDered that these Erndcices,tooFyilciated to defeat etey cha*se;ofjusti*-e,ere all coival with .the law. ibich the bbus waaiow csLUedaupon to alter, and bal.ll been gotrid of, "one after ihe other, in the face Do.it hes-asp6weermid as that which had Vut beenmadleby thelton aid lanmed.memrber for Plyir.pton Earle. athe yetas- 11190, again, liad come thie act whilch gave-thec benefit of CGIIInSerlto.erg clharged'withi treason ; and it ~was curious to re- markthatthe peeces against th at lct (as far as they were reported) had cntaind eey arument whiich thehlon. and leapriIed member bad eenurgng.The preamble to that act, too, wits worth a mo, mon's ttetjo,,t wais called, " An act in order that persona chagedwit hih reason should have the nmeans of miaking a full and uffiientdefece_" Now change only one word, andt the sametite miht o for the bill of the hionourable mover on the presnt ecasio (ils- Lab); anld if the house threw out such a measure, wha ws itlet the consider..that they, were refusing? And, uPon princile h bwsed to hear what difference there was between cases of treason and cases of felony ?It was said, that the person charged with treason was entitled to the higher pro'teciion, on account of the rank of the adversar- with which lie had to con- tend; but he (Sir James Macintosh) said, that in face, the man accused of felonv stood In most need of protection ; for persons charged withi treason were commonly persons of education sad tuty and depable, up to a certain Point, of defending tiiemselves11e, whbile the felons camne fron amiong the most ignorant and helples class of the comnmunity. The hionourable and learnedI member (Sir James Mlacintosh) then alluided to thd' case of Tliurtell, for the purpose of showing that the argument of his honourable friend (Mr. Lamb) had beta misunderstood. HIe wouldl just take occasion to say, in parenthieses, that he exceedingly condermned the perverted sy-mpathy whiich had prevailed in somne pat of the public nmind towards oneof the miost atrocious ruffians that Pad ever disgraced a country; and,WithreRpect to the dlefence which he had mnade, If any doubt of hiis guilt coalid have existed, that defence must have removed it; in fact, the str-ange, wiltd, perverted, theatri- cal desire and feeling whiich possessed the unforturnate man in all he said, seemned to have rendered himi quite regardless of his life: bat the argument of the honourable miember for Dan-arvon. as far as it -had touchied upon the case of' Thiurtell, wags, that&counsell s;hould be a-l- lowed to prisoners, in order, as far as, possible, to equialize thjeir power in painit of talents; because, where men were driven to tlie necessity of rel ving, under all circanmstances, Upon themFelves, it woudld be seen at oncr that the particular facuilty, oIr want of faculty. in a prisoner, might make a material difference in his fate. A shrewd and able man mighit escape, althiough gutilty; while a duller indi- vidual, although innocent, might be unable to miake out his ca1se. For the objection that suffercing c-ounsiel to addressa jury on the part: of.an accused person (a felon) would oblige the cons.e for the pro-. secutioa to state the case agant hiim more strongly-.that in this way the parties would 'ble'tome inflamed by thie heat of dispute, 'or by the dlesire of professiunal repuitation-and that the court, in fact, wvould be turned into an arceii upon which the rival advocates would openly contend, the stake for which the'y fouglit being the life or death of a huiman being he did not think thzis objection requilredl a very particular ansver:h reliedl upon the presencre of thejnaige, and upon the feeling of the counsel themi- selves, to prevenit any improper demonstrations of ea'gerness or pas- sion ; and, after a' lI-suppose thle eifect anticipated to be produced-. he bai never yet heard. that a contest of tailent between persons deeply interestel wvas not, in overy' case, the surest mnode of arriving atth truth. He (Sir J. Macintosh) could cite opinions in abun dance, antl not 'of speculators or philosophers, in saipport o)f the pritnciple of the bill whiceh his hionourable friend was introducing ; bat he thiouglht thlat the reason of the thiing, withiout atiy authiorities, was more thian sufficiently obvious. Upon whtgound of reason (lid we give a man counsel in a case of oilis- demeanur,Tad refusqe it tok him in a case of felony-.nrotecr him where the worst was a moderate penal Ity-, anid leave him exposed where the question was life or death'? He could not attach any weight to the observation of the lion. anti learned member opposite5 that the country had not petitionied the house upon the suibject. He truisted that he should never be b~ackward to acknowletige the value to which in Parliament the petitions of the people were entitled ; hut a quastion of law was nor. the subject upon whichi he should be the most inclined to give attention to themi. Thiere were none but professio6nal persons who could have sufficient informs.. tion to quialify themi for such an undertaking as the reform of the criminal la-w. So that on the one handl there was the ignoraaiee of the community generally, and on the othier the prejudice and con- firmed habits of the professiion of the law. He whio undertook the task would have but a thankless office. Still, as Sir E dward Coke hiad observed, whoever sees any thing which requires correction, and points it out for the examination of the governiment or the legisla- Lure, dots but paty the debt whichl every man owes, not to the profes- sion of the lawv only, but to his country. The ATTORNEY-OBE'RAL aamitted that thlis was indleed no light andI trivial quiestion, but one of the deepest and gravest im- nartance. He didInot coneur in theproposition now made for efl'ett- ing an alteration in the criminalIjuris-prtdence, which, in his opinion, tenthedI most extremely to the disadvanta'ge of justice. The obser- vations of his hon. and learned friend, miemnber for Knaresborough, with respect to the efFects of professional habit, had put hiim on his guard, and he doubted his own, opinions, from fear that they were tinctured with that prejudice. Hlis hotn. and learned frienid had tone back to the early Ilistory of thelaw, anad had shown the defec- tive state in whichl ii once sfootl. and yet the hiouse wou!d do well ts) obserre, that, great as those dlefects were, tha thea state of the law had its sulpporters aga-Inst any innovation, the same as it had at this, day. It should be recollected that, untlil the reign of Queen Anne,n part ae-used of felony could call witnesses to be examiniied for the dlefence on oath ; and, strange as it mnight appear, the old praciice was vindicated in' opposition to the new ont introduced under tIme statute, on the grounids of humianity andI tenderness to the prisoner. It was said then, that the accused had a great advantage in niot being able to examiime sworn witnesses, because the witnesses, not being hound by oath,could give tWer evidence miore at large than the witnesses for the Prosecution, wvhose oathls restrained their testi- mnony. But the better opinion prevailed, that as the witnesses for ttime Droascution deposed unaer the responsibility of an oathi, the judge in his. charge was obliged to give more consider- ation to their testimony than to the statements of unsworn and irresponsible witnesses on the other side. The honourable and learned member was not so happy is his authiorities as heo seemed to suppose, because thiere was none of all whiiih he had cited which bare immediately upon the question. The remnarks t' Judge Jefferies wvere not founded on the state of the lawe as it no~w existeth, but upon the state of the lawv at that period ; aind with respectI to Lard LNottingham, to whose autlior ts' his hionourable and le-arned friend hael alto ref'erred, hie wo'uld oppose the samne abjection. At that tiIue a party accused of felonyv could have nio counsel to assist himi in the trial. Coulnse i, i sayith -oart, but soart from the prisoner, wvithi whom they could have no zommunicatton; thiey w,er:enot allowved toput atny quiestion or suggest any doubtful paint of law. linit if the prisoner, likely to be a weak unlettered roan, could suggest any doubt in miatter of law, the court determinaed first if the question of law shouldI be entertained, and thlen assigned counsel to argue it. But if hiis hon. and learned friend- would depend upon authorities, he wouild call to his recollection one of the very highest whichi conld be namned by any lawvyer in crimiinal 'jurisdiction, a judge, whio, by a very singular phrase, hiad been styled the 1,1agna Charts of cr'iminal law-tle alluded to Judlge F'o~tcr, whio stated that he had heard all thie arguments uponi this very subject, and adImitted that they were vers' plausible, but camie to a dlecision the npposite tothiat ofthehonoaira-ble and learned member. He woalti intvite the attention of the house to the state of the lair as it now stood. Nothiing could be- conceived inure imipartial, cool,. and considerate than thle 'Wceedings in couirts of crinminal justice-- there could he no course miore entirely favourable to the develop- nient of the truth-thie greatest order, no extraordinary excitementr, temperate, eandid inquiiry, hby parties almost wholly disinterested- thnese were the aspects rihich were presentedl in a criminal trial. They should pause before they hastily undertook to subvert so ex- cell ent an artier okf thitigs, before thley consetnted to put to hazard time excellence of a loig..tried systems for the sake of' pursuiing a chimerical good. But was it the advantage of the prisoner which his hionourable anid learned friend sought ? At present, the judge was of counsel for the accused in trials for felonv. Bat if tile coutnsel for the defence were to mnake a speech f'all if inflamimationl and exaggeration, whiihl must inevitably tiappen, thien it would he replied on by tite judge in his chlatge, and he would thus beconie of counsel againqst the prisoner. Wlas this the advantage whichl they would give the prisonier ? BUt :his was not all. if a speechi were allowed for thle defene there must be atilother in reply, not perhiaps in all cases, hut I generally-at any rate too frequently niot to he considlered in the ar- eurnent. The ca-se would thlen stand as inlVici Prius pract cc, where dlie oddis were always for thle plairitiff-his counsel lhad tlitefirst speech snd the last-sand the efFects of the last imlpression, were suchi, that he hadl seen cases in which they couldl not be erased even by the chiarge of the Jud~e directed to thatvery object. That wasdie vervy Fiefect of which they comiplained in the civ-il system of trial. In misdlemneanours it was felt still inore severely. I it ad oftent Deceurrel to him to be put in the painful situation of refusing to callI witnesses, though vehemrently urged by the prisoner, far fear of' giving the prosecutor the opportutiiity for reply; not knowing, but IIaVIn~g to dread, what might be the effect of that r ply. As for tics interests of truthi, it could not be showvn that the alteration favoured them. At present there was no obstruiction offered to legal evidence on a trial for felonly. Thie detail* of the whole case were lailI oat in evi- dlence,and were followedi by a similar exhibition ofevidence for the de- fenlce , theproceedings were calmly comimented on by thejurige, and the wlioleof them lef'tto thejury. Bum.suoiposetlhetrial were assimilated La Nisi Prius and minidemeanours, wliat advantage couldl the prisoner have then?P The uaost abIle and experienced conitisel, those of most coinfirmedI practice and self-possession, wvould be generally engaged on the aidle of the prosecution, for on that side would be tound the preponderance of wealth. As to the arguments drawn fromi the statute of William III., tite lhonourable and learned mem- ber had not gone far enougrh withi it. By that statute the pri- onr chantred witlh treason .a,% to hlave aitofhejr-arbi- trary challenges-a list of the witnesces -a copy of the indict- meiot, by the contents of which and the list of witnesses thie counsel for the prosecution were bound. But the honourable and learned memnber could never seriouIslY wish to see the trial for felony, assimnilated to the trial for treason. A trial for treason was a warofintellcct and wit, ofpassion and dexterity, ofheat and animiation. The power of thieCrovn bring enlis%ted agaitnstthe prisonler-he ldtidot speak it invidiously-it Was necessary aLnd allowable for the counsel of the prisoner to use all means to.excite the popular feeling in his favour, almost to inflammniation, in order to' check the too great weight of the pawer of the crown brought against him. Upon the whole, he felt that the proposition would tend to deprive the crimi- nal jurisprudence of all those advantages syhich at present distin- guished ii; and lie must therefore object to the motion, because his spposition was to the principle, ansl could not be tmtoved by details in this stage. Dr. LUS HlNGTrN said that his hon. and learned friend had done well to tdefer the general grounds of the argument: hiis acute mind had informcd him that there was nothing tenable there. It was not a question of what was best for prisoner and prosecutor, but wlhat was best for all partie.-what means were best calculated to let innocence escape, and what to bring guilt to conviction. His honourable and learned fdend had pointed out the great in- conveniencies whrich arose fromn the employment of counsel in mis- demeanours. He said that the incerests of justice were likely to be impeded by assimilating the practice in trials for felony and misde. meanour. This, at least, neither he nor anv one who heard himn would deny-that the eiimploynleitt of coutsel was generally conge- nial to the feelings of the community, whether the weU informed or the illiterate; and manyhon.gentlemetn musihave heardfiomthemiex- pressions upon the subject of trials for ftelony like that which he Dnce heard-"m' We have heard a speech made against the prisoner, but, as there was nonee made for him, we don't know what mnight hlave been said in his' favour." It was not quite true that the judge was of counsel for the accused-be neitber was nor could he possiblj he so; he might point out a flaw in the pro- ceedings, he might refiuse to receive illegal evidence, but it was forbidden to him to show, his inhenuity by puttiog the raspof the rionerin the verybestointof view. The.hon. aud Icarn'ed gendeumau :iag tjlkedl of.the speeches of the counsel for the roseition, a4s, fite actcused haid.uio difliculty of tbat kcind to con ,end witha at present, The best way of tryi Ie ways by appealing to the tact. He' llevry 'idell reE&ilected a tSial faf murder,.in 'whict a bright ornament of the law, now departed, was sid to have mane wuact-was emPhatically cAlled 011 of his hangirlg gpeecbes.![,I, ec'idence wias entirely circumistaiitial, but it was ro niee doe. tailcd byh ineuity. of the couinsel that the minds of d2o'ry wereled step by step almost infallibly to a conviction.E ?owieow was thiS dexerous speech of the coansel opposed ? Kit hb anOther counsel esal to liimself'in experience, expert int practiee$wvith rea. diness and s1elf commandl, and all other advantages whicb lisa pro.. fessional studies could give him. Btut it wvas answvered byapo illiterate mnan, who had never addressed aLn nssembv l- an kind in the whole course of his life~, and at a minutees notic., The speechi of the counsel hayiing been mnore than an hioar atnd 20Omi.. flutes long, he was called upon to replvtoe toatmtt nae h web wvhich had been so curiously woven-a taLsk, he would venture to say, to which not a man out of ten thousand was equal. Aliowh,n ev.ery, thitng proper for the sanctity of custom, when set UP a gainst -any proposed alteration, he was one of those who thought that whatever was good in theory wouild not be bad in practice. lie w,~ conviuced that mnany innocent persons were conivicted, anld man'y ~iltYpersonsacquitteil, for want of oounsel toussist in the Proceedings. VhIoever had been at the Old Bailey and witnessed the course oftrial there, must bave seen occasionally a poor trembling aind illiterate wretch, when ealUedupon forhis'defencc, refer to his counsel. He then learn%, to his further consternation, that counsel could ot be sufferea to speak, for him; lie resigns his fate at once into the hiands of the Couirt, because lie hias no power of address whatever. But as his lhonourable and learned friend haa alludled to the tria-l for misdemeanour, it wvould be as, well to place the two modes in, juxta.position. Hie would cake the case of thje inte ligent foreigner: put by his hon. friendc near him, who migt be anxious to widiress the proceedines of the critninal courts. He ought to be contducted to the Old Bailey andtlieaCourt of Sessions at C]erlenwell. At the latter place he might see a man put upon his trial for attemptina to, commit a rape; his courosel would be heard, his witn. sses called but the facts betntr strong against hirm, he woulti be convicted, pnd sent to the tread-nAll for two Years. The reflecting foreigner would praise the institution of the 'grand and petty jury, and the indul.. genceo to the prisoner and his counsel, and conclude that nothing cudbe better contrived. lie oughit then to be invited to walk, up tn the Old Bailey, and there he would see a luau puit oni his trial, not for attempating,l'Iut tbr actually comonitrting a rapse; and -becauise his life was at stake,bhewould not be allowed counsel to plead for him,bittin three w-eeks he wouldlbe executed, becaLuse he had been arraigned and convicted. flow could the inquhiing foreigner be brought to apprehend the policy or justice of refusingz to the offender who had to rtin the greater risk, the assistance of counsel which was allowedl to the otlier culprit ? As to the general sentimnent, he did not wish to compare our jurisprudence with that of France, but certainlv in the Code Napoleon, the great editor of that Work, if he might so entitle hiim, not only al- lowed counsel for the defaence in capital charges, but enactedi a' spe- cial clause which gave the prisoner the last word if the prosecuting counsel chose to reply upon the dlefence. Upon the arguinent of e-.. peuse, he observed, that no country in the world had so parsinioni.. ous a system of criiminal justice. There were onlv 12 judges, a re- rord.er, and the common sergeant, to clear thegaolsiof die w,hole Icini. dom. Again,th e iudgesg were comparatively starved; they did not af n-it them till thiey were too oldt fortlie inore activ'e duties of the profes_ sion , they kept them upon a niggardly allowance until old age and absolute dotage overcook themi, and allowed themi to retire, if at all, upon their miscrablepension just as they were dropping into the grave. He hoped to live to see these things altered ; he hoped that the jutdge's office would be madle as respectable andI lucrative as many whichi were now a-der him : he dlid not Respair of hYingr to see the chief justiceship of the Commion Pleas rendered so prolit- able, that his hon. and learned friend need no longer to refu,,e accepting it. (Laughtei.) lie complimented hris hon. and learned friend, the member ~for Knaresborough, upon the great effort-s wlhich he hiad mnade for reforming and humanizing rue criminal code, and gave his cordial support tso the motion. IThe SOLICITOR-.GENE RAL said that it was strange that the question shouild be now discovered and started for the first time ; for there was no proposal of this alteration in the- report of the comnuittee oni crimninal laws, thottgh cot up imader the inspeetion of the honourable arnd learned memb~r for Knare i- borough. There was no complaint upon the subject in any, of the books, neither in Stailitford, nor Sir 31. H 1ale, nor Judire Foster, nor in;the eleg-antand enlightenedcommentatiesot'SirW. Blackstone. Cases of treason funned ani exception to the rule which prevailed upo al the ocaios, and lie thought it was Just that thiev -should. Where thu prosecution was conducted by counTsel for the Crouwn, and where th~e object was, as in such cases it always was, to obtain a con- viction,Iit was fair thiat the s-ame advanitage illould. be had by the personi accuised as was possessedhy the prosecutoms After the best consideration he hadl been able to give to this subject, he felt con- vinced that no good would resuilt from the rec4ension of the practice of allowing- counsel to plead fur defendants beyond these cases. On- the contrary, lie believed that much mischief 'would ensue. He wag therefore desirous that the ruIe should be left in its present state, e.nd the grounds upon which he framed thie conscientious and impartial opiniion he had Dow expressed were-that neither did he know any practic-al injustice that it occasionetd, nor had any' writer upon the criminal law of England, xitid wvhose works he wvas acquaintea,creat.. ecl this systemo as a defect in tllat law. Mlr. DEN ahAN regzretted thiat be had not been in the house at an earlier period of'the debate, and that lie had been prevented from heiaring the speeches which were delivered in the course of it. lie- was more particularly sorry that he had not heard the speech s,f that learned person who ha~d brought so mutchi reputationt with hiim into the house-a reputation the grrowthi of which during tilat leasn- ecl gentlemnan's practice at the Irish bar, he (Mr. Denman) hadl watched with great pleasuire, and upon no occasion had lie been more gratified at its increase than whlen, about a year ago, he had gained so imuch honouir by his sue- cessluxl e-xertions in benalf of the liberty of the subject ilpon a state prosecution. It was somewhat sinigular that the learnedI gentleman should have been followetd in hiis argumi nt by Itis tira learned friends Cutie Attorneyv and Solieitor General), bothi of whorns wecre probably indebted for' the lionours, they now enjoyed to the ability they had displayed in defending pera;nas who were ibe objects of prosecution for high treason. He hadi thought that. hiis learnedI frienids wotIild in their speeches have furniishedi admirable arguments in favour of the proposedl measure ; but he could not regret they, hacd nor done so, since their owvn examples gave so liuch imore po%verfnl a piroof of the efficacy andi the necessity of the aidt of counsel being extendled, to prisoners, ttitan even their arguments couldl have aifforded. It seemed, however, that as cases of treason were excepted from the genecral practice, this was held to be a rea-. soti why counsel shiould not be allowed in othier criminal cases. IHI thought that, besides the weakness of the reasoning, sudls a system was far from respectful to the juidges by whom those 'other Icases were to be triedl. It hiad been raid by onie of hiis learned friends, that per-sons charged witli felo-iny should not be allowed tn dlefend themselves by counsel,because this would hiave the effect of getting rid of that tranquillity and composure with witicll stich trials .were nowv conducted. He thought his learned friend had f'orgotten a little hels practice that prevailed in the courts whiere such trials were held when he was in the habit of attending them. He (Mr. Den- mian), on the contrary, found that u very considerable degree of %eartinthi was excited by those very, difficulties which thie pre- sent systein occasionejf. The coutmsel for a prisoner beinc now deba-rred from any opportusilty of stating dfirectly to the ~jury- such facts and argulnients as the course of the inveftioation suggested weecmeldnod oh eans of raising ubjee. iosaddisputing points, in which ihey introduced the obser- vations they lhad Ito miake to the jury, bv addressing themn to the eous-e. An instanceaof this, lie remembered to have learTd, occurred at ale Irishi bar, where the eounsel for the pirisoner wras puirsuinDg this course, but in so pointedI a m-anner that tie judge said to him-" Sir, are you addressing thie court or the jury ?" to whiceh the counsel re- plied-" I am addressing tile court, niy Lord, but I htope the jury will hear me." Although, therefore, counsel had no otlier than ridS. circuitous mode of discharging 'that they must think was their duty to their clients, he believed they did so ' ith no less warmtii than if they were perlnitted to address rihen-selves directly to Cile jury. '['le. object oni both sidcs was always to obtan a verdict. In openinK a case., it was true that diie counsel for tl,e prosecution seldomi, if ev-er, sought to state any thing inote unfavourable to the pri- boner thll:mn as absolutely necessary - there seeuned. generally, to be about theni an air of reluctance to malke out the ease against himn; buit he (Mir. Deniiaiusul enied that this forblearance and comiposure continued beyond the opening. He had often seen grest watrith displayved by counsel in trials for life and dleathi, upon points mehich, to mere bv-sranders, would seem ah-rost. indifferent. The preservation of the client on the 3nc hand., adtitcthir professional reputation on the other, excited them to) efforts h id,l were totally incomnpatible with thee composure tbev maintained in the earlier stage~ of the trial, and which was so muich insisted on. The question, therefore, seemiedi to be, whether the inuconveniences and the obvious injus,tice ofthe presentrsystei- sh,ould continiue, or whe-ther the d'ms. co~very o-f the truth shioul.d be allowetd to take its chance in a contest oi' equal talent, by wrhich the discussion would be carried on en both sbides, lie denied the supposition hirche had becen veni- tured upon, that all the talent would be on die skide of tlhe C-rown ; lie believed that it wouldi be always foiutid equallY divided, and he wvas sure that thne bar would bermateriallv irnproved if thie privilege of addrfas'kng the jury tin the behialf oif prisoners were granted. Wllttii resper. to the objection on the ground of the waste of time which it would occasion to the judges, wh'ich had nut been put very strongly, be shouldnot, and hle thought lie oug'hr not to give, atty other ai3swer,than ttilat if there was timle for execution, there ogh t also to be time for investigating fully the geiilt of the parties, accuseA. All minior considerations shouild 'he sacrifiredt to the larger and niore imiportant question of the best mode of comning at the truth. [ The hon. genit. here hesitated a few momnents, and apolo- gized to the house, by saying, Lhat he had been in town ouIS- a few hours, and was altogether unprepared for the di~cussiol. lHe had risen, rather froin his anLxiety to bear testimony as a witness on this subiect, thlan to address to the house the argumnents whichi might 1* uirg'ed UpOn it4 (Cheers.) "residing, as it wras often his duty to. do,. in oine of hisAlajesty's couirts of criminal justice, hie coild slate from. personal experience,' that it weould in aUl cases' be a grea1t relief' to the judge to be addressed by coiunsel on both sides. Asto dhe judge being counsel 'for the prisoner, althougliifhIe were tobc counsel' at all it was better thathle should be so on that side, yet it was matli. festly incompatible withi the dutie-s of the judge, and particulasly wvith that laborious one o-f taking down die ex'idence, and seeinig that thae facts alleged weredulyproved. Thematters which it wodbathlletlc province of a counsel to state, would be rather for the consideration. ofehejury thaii o tIme juadge, wbo would have to leave dtie considera- tion to thenm. It was therefore i 'possible forajudge to act as coun sel for the prisoner, unless lie should take such a view of the case as an able advocate retained for the prisoner wvould take, and this it was obviously impossible for a judge to do. Nothing was more commnon than to meet propositions like that now before the houise with art assertion that the exLsting practice was found to go on wvell: but, in, thu. present instance, to say dlis was to say nothing ; for thl course recommended to be adopted had not yet been tried. There bad been no experience of its usefulness, but the principle wIas underiable. Nothing could be a greater injus. tice than to call upon a defendant at the bar, in a. season of great agitation and alarm, for this defence. when it wvas cear that all the preparations he could have been enabled to mualce for that defence must have been made betbrehe was aware of the cxact nature of the facts which would be proved against him. (H ear.) Any man niust be less able to set fortlh his defence (if he were at all competent to the task) at such a m oment than at anyother'; and he (Air. Denman) wsas ut a loss to gues upon what groand 'it could be argued that under such disadvantages a man oueht Ii f.airness to be deprived of the aid oft'counsel, while it ;was -pessesset by the prosecutor, wio stood so much less in heed ofit. Suppose tbht a prisoner, capitally indicted, should be mute, or lunatic,or aridibt1 upon whtatgrounds ought lie to be deprivetl'of 'tltat aid which. was anobrded to ersons chanced wvith much s'iialler offences X 'as'it not mnore fair that a man should not be called upon to cope, with Ike-i difficqlhies of his situatieon,-under -U the agitation whieh must at- tend thelitnowzledge tih%t hic.lifieX,, Qt C . t, D '.r : _ Jti?lTde~e.A few ye5js *go p5l5isouer.we&,nt 2allowed couil se, at aii, and wvera comipoelld to cross-exain~ino witnesses, if thfey were croess.examilead at all, by themnselves. They couldntee bave thte assitnce ofrcounsel to-aru na point of law,unesty firt tolttheobjcton,ignraD asthe must necessari'ly beof -Such subjcects, and the judge saw fit to ordcr an arguirnent upon it.. Liet themt niot, thex, be told of the teudernes of the law, nor that the certatinty of prisoiees' guilt wvas such thlat the assistance of all advocate woiild lessein the chances they at piresent had of escapmin_ It would be easy to quote cases in which innocent persona' had bee coniicted. Perhaps that of Eliza%)eth Canning was the 1Wist rernarkable. She accuseda Gipsy and another woman of hav- ing carried her away and confined and ill. treated, her. They were triedl fer the offence, they bad no counsel, were capitallY convicted and ordered for execration, but afterwvards respited. A great degree Of Popular feeflng was excited on bothi sides. Elizabet.h Canning wats afterwards tried for perjury ; shie haa counsel, but she was found gnity:nfdwas transported. Here,then,wasainninstance in whiclian innocent party,havjng no defenider,w9o fou.ntl guilty, and where, tnot- withstanding the aid of counsel for the defence, the guilty party wws conivicted. (Hear, hear.) Ife might appeal to honourable gentle- teenl Present for the ParticularTs Of caeS Which bad occurred witbtn the l.'st two y-ears, in whichi persons had beea convicted whiose inn'o- cents had afterwards beeta made apparent. In Oct. last, two men were convictedofa highwayrobber%, wlo wrereproved afterwardsto havebeen 'wholly unconnected withi th;e crime they were charged to have coPs- mitted. In that, case the rlrrht. han. the'Secret-ary of State orderedt, nott merely acommutationot' their senitence, but had relieved them feott`1all1the conseq'aences of thieir coniviction.,and gratntedthiem a free pardon. How often sirmilar circumstances might have occurredI -4rhich had not terminated so fortunately, no man couldI say. T-he qXuestiors to be triedi, it shiould be remembered, were not always rmerely of Ay or No, but frequently some of the aiicest specula- tions (temporary derangement for example) wvere presented to the cnsideration of the jury. It hiad been said by his le-arned friend.r, (the Attorney..General), that if' any exagaeration shiould be mnade by counset, the judge never failed to rectify it to the jury. Why, tbr what othier puirpose did the judge sit ? To suppose that he w,ould heat any suchi sia7ements without carefully pointing out their inaccuracy. would be to libel the judgces, and cast uApon1 them an imnputatio.n wilichr the whole of their demeanour con- tradicted. ie regretted thatt hehad had no more sufficien,t opportu- nitY for collectiiig materials to enforce the opinions he had express- cd, ard he concluded by declaringr it to be his firm conviction, that every hont maitae !vry righteous judge, wouldI be glad to haconsel on both sides -state to thejury the facts upon whiich they were called on to pronounce ; and for this reason it was,that hegave: the Tnotion his most cordial supp ort. ilir. R. MtARTIN spoke in favour of tile motion. He said he had, by accident, in his pocket an old A!ageizine, containing a re- port of a case in whiich the ju-stice and necesiity of permiitting coun- Rel for the defence of prisoners was fully shown. (A laugh.) Gen- tleme n might laugh; but this .,lfga~zirre had as goodI a report of the cas as if it had breen in Leach, oranly otheref ttIe Crown law bookes. l'e lio.n,Ietlmnthen dfetailed the partioulars of thie case of Mr. Perrean hanged for forgery ; and who, he contended, would not haebeencovited, if he hasi had the assistance of counsel. eadertedalso to the case of Bellinghnam, in which the Prisoner was not allowetl the assistance of counsel, and in wvhich, too,he sid, he jdge id nt suplythis deficiency for him. He tougt tie jdge as ot away couselfoe the pris-vier, and thatthe risner ugh to ave ounel alowd him,. Ile shioulti therfor sunur th moionof is on. friend, who, hie hoped, The allry ws ten ceard fo alivision ; and the numbers wvere... For the miotion, 50O Against it. 8O 1 Majority against tie motion, 30. LAND-TAX REDEMPl'lON ACT. Oni ouir return into the gallery, we found Slir. M.ABSERLYonbhisIlegs; but he was for some timne, owing to the confusion prevailing in the house, quite inaudible. The lion, gentlemian said that he would briefly state hlow the law in re- spect of the land-tax stoodl at preNent. In the 4th of Willis.m III. (the house would be aware) an act passedi, by which the land was charged withi 4s. in th pound; aiid a similar tax was imnposed on persenal estates, pensions, and offices. This act wias passed annually, andl so continued to be until March, 1703, wlhen Mr. Pitt thiougt, it expedient no longer to bringt it on as an annual measure, chargng four shillings in the pound on landl, buit to mnake it a perpetuae cha'ge upon the la-id, reserving out of ttie old act that part which regarded plates, pensions, and personal property. In respect to these the charge was continued by an annual net. The act of 17.98 beltig, by which he (Mr. Maber~ly) comsidered a most iniquitous detrminatioin, declared to be perpetual, it was of course necessary for 11r. Pi tt to assign and state what his reasons were for taking such a course as he pursued on that occasion. Being perpetual, it was clearly impossible that the landted interest could ever expect any relieff~rom or a dimlinutinn of the tax. (Here the lionourable gentle- mnan read the prenamble of the act of 1798.) The act proyided, that under its provisions the actual owners of estate.s desiring to redeem, should have the preference over other parties ; and that those so entitled in preference shiould hiave this privilege or bonus- that if they purchased 31. per annum annuities, they shouild transfer o-nly 31. 6m. in ithe three per cents., 31. 6m. being- but one-tenth more than the amount of the redeemed stock which they 'were to receive. Otherparties, not being so entitled in preference, were to transfer 31. Mis. in the 3 per ce.,rs., being in ttile proportion' of but one-fifth more thatn whiat they were to receive ; namrely, an annuity of 31. So the law was conitinued by the 37th Gleo. III., anti other subsequent acts, up to the 41st anid 42d Gleo. Ill. By the 42d Gco. Ill., the provisions of the varou preeing statutes were, with certaini exceptions only, revealed. t conferred large and extensive powers on those who mnight wish to avail themnselves of the proposed transfer. E3tates, though under limitations, mighit be sold ; lands might be enfranchised ; money be taken up ott mortgage ; ard many faicilities were extended to corporations. and companies p esiglanded estate, for the purchase of, this, lanld-tax. That actg a'so entailedI a very considlerable ex- pense ini the collection of the revenue it was proposed to raise under it; andi he was sorry to say that expenise still con- titrued. The tax itself haul been soldI to the amiount ofabouit 700,0001. a-year; so that 1,200,0001. still remained unsid ; anti yet the coun- tryv stood at the samie expense it would do if the wvhole amount had been disposed of. The presenit charge ought to be in proportion to what it w-as in the aeg-regate-sornewhere betwveen 27,08111. aiid 28.0001. ; but he was convincedl that it 'ens very nearly- 60,0001. a-y-ear. (Hear.) Ilie wvouild nurw beg to ask wh~' this tax had not b2 en all soild, and thre stock transferred. Thle reason was very ob- viouis the nature of the lat. acts whichi had been passed on. the subj ect a-as such, thiat thely defeated tire whole initention of Mr. Pitt"; bill. In the first place, the 42dl Gcorrge Ill. did not put the stranger upon the same rclative footing withi respect to the ow.ner, whiich lie stood on in the original enactment. The -result of the total Oprrations of' the several acts liad been this-- TIhere hiad been soldI of tile tax 700.0001., for wvhich Government lhad got between 24,Wit00~01. and 24,000,0001. of money, the sale price upon an average having been abouit 6601. in nioney, for every 31. of land-tax that had been redleemed. It was because he felt anxious tiatr they sboultl get out as soon as possible of the injudicious course -which they had b.een pursuing, that Fre wvished this subject to go to -committee. The planwvas quite useless, if it was to remaininope. sative, and yetrmost inoperative it wvould beemn to be; for in thleyear l8-23, the Cniurch and Corporation Commissioners liad redeemned 3531. onlY ; a'sd their expenses in the transactions amiounted to 2,2001. (Hear, hear.) He might be told, perhaps, that since the dtisr-ussion of las! year, the sort rif collection that he complained of was put an endi to- Hfe did not know whiether lie was rightly in- funned or not ; but, as at present advised,the commilissionl in questien be understood to have been a most expensive one. Tneir expenses, bad been abo)ut 3,0001. a year, and the whole amioun t of rezx redeem- ed under their op. ration h -il been 11.8021. The lhouse wouild agree with hiun, that as thing s stood in this situation, somne course or other was necessary to ble adoptedi whichi mighit extricate them fromn sh dffcut in which thle matter was apprarently involved. They 'hudete epea th iialpa, or mnake it operative and efif- cacious. But liory could it be repealed ? Since it was oron-ulgated inl 1798, thle proprietors of lands and strangers hail purchiased about one-third of the tax. If, therefote, Parliam-rent were nAw so repeal the existing perpetual aet, and make ic ani annual one, as formerlv, they, wouldI be doing the gre-atest iinjustice to those wvho hiad already purchasedl. If, on the other hiand, tisey- went on to give the measure f01 cifrct, they wouldl ba. doing the greatest benefit to the country, particularly if they proceededi .t thec present mrolnent. F'or let not the hou;e he ron away with by rvitat had been morethan once urged to themi, that the thing shoul4d not be doise now, hUt left to he made available at a time of difficulty, or distress. If theyv wvere to) sell thie renainder of thlis tax..t the present price of' stack-_ the market price of' the dcav (85 or hith)_they would iuio perceive that thne public would thiertily be put in possession of 9.)00r0,0001. or 10,000,OOJL. more than ifthey were wselt.attliesaimepsiees at which the! previous annacities hadl been sold. If the alterations of the measure which he hioped to propose insa commnittee should be adopted, and the Government be allowed to proceed with the Produce to the reductionl of the unfunded dlebt, thze greatest imaginablei advantage nmust accrue to the countryv. It would be obvious to all whio heard him, that if' 3000,0001MO. or 40.000,000i. of money were to be appropriated to the reduction of thiat !,debt, thie credit of the countrfy wouild rise so high, that the interest of the 3 per cents. ouight very possibly- be reduced to oi p2r cent. Now no object could be proposed for the application of wrhatever produce tire measure he sug,gested mrigh~t yield that was s,o legitimate as thqe reduictioni of' the unfunded debt. The amount, of that debt he believed to be about MAN ODD,0o~ u8 toss that his suggestions should be acceded to,; and tuhat ihe present ttanquillity, of the world, in whiich he so heartily rejoiced, should be unfortunately disturbed. Suppose that a war were to break out, the Chanicellor of the Exclhequier would find himnself in this situation-the unfunded debt would he redeemed ; the monev ins rket very clear ; tire price of (Joserninent securities proportion'- able ; and the right hon. gentleman himnself wouldi have the means of, carrying on the war for two years 'without beitig crimpelled to mnake any extraoirdinary or heavy call noi the pub'lic. If the house should grant hill the commnittee, and the committee, adopting1 his (M1r. Mlsberly's) view rif'the niatter, should recommend tire sale of the remainmrg tax, and the al,plicationl of the money produce to the reduction of debt, would not thiese, he desired to ask, be points well worty th attntio of arliisseit? as t notmrostpNrobable in suc aeae tatth inerstof he3 er en,,would be diminished toatlast2 perent.?Hekn.wof no ode by which the house coud srenlil obai th beefi tht as then so much desired, as by tis. n 189, i wassail tha adeustelIy to sustairn its credit, the country muust nave a sinking turtl of 6,000,0001. But how could puiblic credit be more effectually uplieldl, than by clearing the money rnarket of this unfundeci debt, arid by effecting the reduction of the 3per cents.? The honse had alreadyseen the beneficial consequences of similar reductions; for, aslt had been well observed by the noble member for Nortliamptonslire (Lord Althorp , by those reductions Of a rccent date, the country had reaUly made a nominal caital, amonTting to 50 millions, or a money capital of 45 milio;ns; the difference between the two being in fact equal only to thb' difference between the market-price anid par. The honourable gentleman, after expressing h s intention to defer any further details until the niatter shoul(d come on ineommittee. concluded by moving " That aselectcommittecbe ap- pointed to take into consideration the various acts relative to the re- demption ard purchase of the land tax, and to report to the house the alterations necessarv to be inade in order to increase the sale of suchbtax as 6tpeditious1y as possible, and to apply the produce to the reduction of the unfunded debt-" The CHANCELLOR ofthe EXCIHEQUER remembered, that when the lon. gent; brought this matter forward last year, he object- ed to the motion, thinking that no sutllcienit grounds were laid for it, and the hsuse.testifiea no very decidedl dispositiontoentertain it. He (Ihe Chancellor of the Bxchequer) was norv of opinion, that if the house acceded to the committee, the labou-s of that committee would enulonly in (lisappo ntment, for he thought it quite impossi',le that the san uine expectations which tilO bonourable gentleman en- tertained as to the resuEtofhi:ipfrp6siti0n couldt ever berealized. fHad the original measure of'l798 Veen brought forward under any other than its own peculiar circurnstances, he slhould have thought it- one liable to very serious obj:ctions. Its very principle? indeed, could onlY be '-istified by a peculiar state of affairs; tor it went to make perpetua[ that whic had previously been only an annu3L tax. But the 3- Per Cents. viefiihelt at 47 onl '. W~Id tht obJect W"" v4 riie uublie credlit by thaet measure, go -that the minister mbighi lsorr6ii irioney inthe market with advehitige. Itivat perfectlyI =oneon s1.to suppose that when the' lanti-tax was reddeemed, the propertv ceased.to pair the tax, whlich if certainly wouild'do in the ordiniary #cceptaitiqn. of the terms. The fact was, that though the land ceased. to be,bpi-. dened as to the present owner of an esta'te, it clid not astto some ope else.Ifainidulhdaetaeitwsor tt orhmtr- deem the, land-tax on it; butt in order to do so, hte multst sacrfice~ income equal to a certainamnountof that tax; but heleft s rhtote tax pro trotito a burden on the next heir. He vwas redtoam, thatthough thecterois of the meAsure in question were iiapriua sense not such ass to induce persona to) come into it, te ih e an advantage to the country in altering them to some extent, as they cetainly were onerouLs at present to inidividlualt. Such altera- tions mighit, perhaps, increase the operation of the law ; but, as to any additional incducements whjichi the honourable gentleman pro- posed to extend to strangers and parties not connected by possession or descent wvitlh the land, he confessed that he did no, deem. it expe- dient to -adopt tisem. Had the honsourable gentleman proposed to br'ing in a bill containing some definite propositions calculated to acecelerate the operation of the existingr laws, without extending suc avatags o hir prtes,he(te Canelor f heExchequer) wouldnot ave bjeced t it; ut, onsierin tha thcidea of ra-is- the ii'otton.~ ~ ~ ~ ~~n le us MONCKwouldvote or th commtteebut withq the view' onlv of getting rid altogether oran ac hihS W. Pulteney had well described the efec fi aigthat itpatdaprpetual an- nuiltv of five per cetonhecury Th hoorbegentleman then entered into serltamns,in ordr bo shwtat it had thte effect of exchagn etembeandi reducible annuity for an irredeemable and ireducible debt :that the loss of the country hail been to the amount of reveral millions; and that the whole sys- tern was at once illusory anid mischievous, being the mere nominal transfer of a debtor an'd Creditor account, which left the parties it affected to relieve in the same condition they were in before. Mi. HUMB thought that neither his hon. friend who had just spoken, nor the right hon. cent., had done justice to the pr'tposition of the hon. member for Abingdon. By oing into the committee, the rigbt lion, gent, was not committing :himself in any way, but ziving the desired opportnnity, to his hon. frie-nd (Mr. Mlaberly) fully, to explain hi,a piopositiorts. He dlid not see why the whole tax should not be soldl immediately, and converted into something of the natuire of a around-rent, whiceh would save to the public a vast ex- penice iii collectiner. Mlr. M1ABERLY replied. He biad abstained from going' at any length into the details of this subject, because he had exuected that the conimittes would not have been refused. HI[wever, since the right honourable gentleman would not go the length lie had expected, he woild be Contented to take hfis propo ition restiectingv the introductiont of the bill ; but he did hopp1, that if lesral dil~cultics shioLild occoirin its formationi (and such diffi- cuilties he had a riehit to expect), she right hon. gentlemani would allow that leg-al assistance and advice whiich lie h'ad in his povwer. Tie would bring in the bill, but its a matter of such weight and im- portance he did hope for the indulgence of the hiouse- Under the Circumstance of his accepting the rizht hon. genstleman's o ffier, he wnould not, of course, press his m-otion farther.-The motion was then wvithdrawn. THE POOR IN SCOTI,AND. Mlr. KENNEDY was aho'tt to move for leave (pursuant to the niotice he had given) to briner in a " bill to r*glate the relief granted to thle poor in Scotalai," when The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER expressed a hope that the lion, mnember wouli have the goodness to postpone it to sorse otlier day, as he (tlhe Chancellorof the Exchequer) lhad a mea- sure whichi was of considerable importance to introduce-he meant thec st-itement respecting the new duties on. beer, whicebhbad been put off fromn dav to daya foir some time. .Mr. KENNEDY saidl he had every dispositioni to give way to the righti hon. gent.; but he hopedl thiat, as he expected no opposition to hiis measure, the house would give ltimi leave to introduice it at present, and at a futuire stage lie wmild g,o into expilanation of its mnerits. (Cries of "Mlove, mova.") The hon. memiber then matle hiis motion, and it was put'fromn tile chair, when The LiORD-ADVOCATE of SCOTL %ND said, that he felt himself in an awkwiard situation by this proceeding. He hand very seriouis objections to thie bill, which went to overturn the whole sys- tem of poor laws of Scotland, brour-ht in at this late houir, withoutt a syllatblesaid asto it,snecessity,. He hoped Scotland might hear the way in whiceh this measuire was; sought to be introduced, at suchi an hou r, andI without at WOrd said Upon it. M11r. KENINE flY s;,id, that if lie hiad expected the hostility of the learned lord to the meatsure, he wouldI have stated his views withi respect to it; but the learned lord must have observedlthat the course which he (Mr. Kenncdy) hiad purstted, wasan amicableone, and withi a disposition to accommrstolate the house. Hle could not, therefore, account for the tone of the learned lord and the nature of his remark. The LORD-ADVOCATE said, that his, remarks were not in- tended in an offensive sense to the hon. gentleman, but he couldI not but expres;s liia surprise and regret that such an imiportant measure should be thuis introduced. After a few wordse from Sir G. CcxE Ra and MVr. Krg,T'rEDY, Ieave was given to bring in the bill. 1HIGHLANI) ROAD ACT. On the motion of Mlr. Njr. STMITH1, leave was given to bring in a bill 'to extend the powers of the " Highland-road repair act of last -ess:ion." PAUPER LUNiATICS. On the motion of Mr. CARtus Ws.sor,,, leave was given to bring in a bill to amrend tl;e acts for the better care and maintenance of pauper or crimniiial lunatics in England. ALIEN ZILL. On the niotion of Mr. PEEL, the report of this bill was brought up. The resoluitionis were agreed to, and the bill ordered to be read a third time on Mlondcav next. Mlr. GIPP.~ postponed the' second rzading of the " labourers' em- ployment bill" to the 7th of 51av. TIlE NEWj BfPER DUTIES. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER nioved that the houise dlo resolve itself iinto a committee on the beer duties' acts. 'The lhouse havingz gonie into the committee, The CHfANCELLTOR of the EXCHEQUER said. that at thnat late hour (nearly' 12 o'clock) lie slioultd feel it his duty to' put his ob- servations into' as short a compass as possible but still he feare4 that he should have to trespass on the attention of the comnilttee longer than 'he could wishi at such an hiour. The s'ubject of die beer duties was one whiceh hadl been postponed orsom ctime, and it was important to the country that the knoiw- ledge of the intentions of Governmnent withi respect to them should not, be longer delayed. The propositions which lie should that night suibmit Would Tela'te, first, to the dlitty on beer ; next, to the indivi- duials who manufactured it ; and thirdly, to those by, whom it was sold. Wlhen, in an early, part of this setision, an hon. member (Mr. Maberly) had proposed that the duties on beer should be transferred to tdie malt, he hiad felt an objection to the imeasure, because he thouight at the time, and his opinion had not ret been alteretI ilupon the point, that suchi a plan would 'be only transferring the burden from one class of persons to anothe~, whichi he coulid not ttidnk adviable: but at the same time he wns not insensible to the objections in law wvith respect to the tale of beer undler particular circumstatnces: lie had, therefore, giveni the subject his most serious attention, and consi(teied wrhether an improvement might niot be made in the law, by such ar- rangernerits ini the sarle of duties as miight not only facilitate thne sale, but at the samec timne secure to the paiblic-lie mneant that por- tion of the public which wvere the principal Consumers of beer-s-ucb a qulityas wuldanswer the object wvhich the lion, memnber (Mlr. Mabeh')hid ad n view by htis moudon. Any plan of this kcind, consderig ho thelawv stood, wouildI not be without its difficulties1. Ther wee thee orts of beer whicht nowi paid dluty, The first was the small beer, which paidI a duity of 2s. per barrel (of 36 gallons.) Then Came the beer of interniediate quality, wvhichl was charged with a dluty. of 5a. per barrel; and the law said that suchi beer should not be sold at a higher price than 22s., exdlusive of the duty; and that all beer which was sold at a highier rate than that, shou'ld be chairged a dtity of lOs. per barrel. Trhe "intermediate" beer was that which wvas allowed by the act of the last session ; but by a clause in that act, which was to prevent the danger of mixture wizh othier beer, the person selling the intermezdiate beer was not allowed to sell any othier, at least on the samne premises. This beer wvas made on a sc-ale of five and a half barrels of beer to one quiarter of malt, which "-as not very strong : all brewed stronger was charged a dutv of los. per barrel. The porter, which seas she article of genereL. constimption with the working classes, was brewed in the propor- tion of three barrels and (we thin1k) three-eighths to one quarter of mialt, which, as lie had observed, was charged a duty of los. per bar- rel. Ashy the present acts, a great variety of res&ictions wecre en- forced in the rinanuf'acture of beer,as to the number of barrels brewed, and the situlations in, which they were brewed, to prevent the danger of mixture, and of aconsequent diminution of revenue, it occurred to him that in the plainwhichihe was, about to submit, it would be etetogupon the principle of regulating the amount of ltiny by reeeneto. Uthe quantity of malt usedt, or supposd to be used, in a given qatty ot beer. He had franicel a scale, by which the du ty oti the very strongest beer and on the lowest wouild be raised some- thtingc above their present rates, for- in any alteratiun of the present rates,he cauld not afFord that the revenue shoulti lose. Thecre would. thierefore, be an increase in the rates of the two kinds of beer he ladl menitioned;, but in anothier description of beer-that which Wa's the general beverage of thie working classesetliere wouldI be a considerable diminution of the duty. Any person m-ight hnave a stronger kind of beer who chiose to pay in proportion to its strength. By these means, many of the restrictions now in force withi rcaspeact to brewers wvould be uinnecessary. The scale of duties whlich he woitld propose were these :-He would( say, that for all beer in which one quiarter of malt shiould be used in mak- ing anty quantity short of two barrels, thecre should be charged a tduty of 24s. per barrel. Wihere the quantity brewed from aquarter of malt was above two, and less than three 4arrels, he wouldI savs a duty of 12s. par barrel; where the quantity breweil g.!s be- tween three and four barrels from the qluarter of malt (asd thnis wras the strength at which porter was now bretwed, and upon whiich lOs. per barrel ditty were chiarged), lie wvoutld say 8s. per barrel; m akitig a reductiOn of 2s. per barrel on that kind of beer which was miost in uise at present. li'bere tite quantity brewed was between four and five biarrels per quarter, 6is. duty ; betweten five and six barrels, 4s 9d.; between six and seven barrels, 4s. ; and where the quan-. harrels (antd te eld not supose it would be sold weaker), the dutr would be 3s. 2.id. per barrel. This wotuld, he conceived, be giving the advantage to the consumer of that kitd of beverage most in use, and yet, by the increase on the very strong and on the lower kinds of beer, there would be nodanger of loss to the revenue. The nextpartof histroposition hadreference to a matter which had excited a very con- siderable degree of public attention tiis year, and on which the law as it now stood was consideredl uncertain-he alluded to the descrip- tion of persons whb were to sell by retaiL The commnittee would recollect, that last year a qucstion was asked him in the house, whe- ther a brewer could sell by retail the article not to be consumed on his premises ? HIe had answered, that he was not aware of any law which existed to prevent a brewer (licensed as such) from selling by retail, provided he was willing to forego the alowance made to wholesale brewezs, and also provided that the beer was not to be dratik on his premises. A similar question was put to the. Board of Excise, or their solicitor, and a similar. answer returned. Ini consequence of those answers, retail breweries were opened in various parts of the country, and-beer was svld, asit was conceived by the parties, as the law permitted. This created considerable alarm among other classes of brewers, and the comse. quence was, that they having doubts as to the lawi instituted prose- cutions against tliesepartiesX, fl retailing withbut atnagistrate's8li.: cence for that purpose. As ihe cases were tried,the sagistrateg,iii- svhar'no doubt appeared to them tobe the- fair cotistructio. ofthse Jaw, ccornvicted the parttes accused. Appeals were tMide'in all tfic cases, and the matter was eventuially biouitglt for decUisbn iito tbct Court of King's Bench; hut owing to the press of businenssfi that court, the appealswere nut yet heard, and of course the law remain- ed still undecided. IF or bis own part, though he was not a good judge of the constrction of an. act of Parliament, yethe bad no dotbt thst,t as thelaw owaratd &tlrewhinlbthinB Int *'srVeft& ,btewe From 5eUttg.by; tath(thelbeeei..ot tbe-ca on Mi e without reqirlng,a maglstrate'ilideni!etfoihat' p rpW ntit- w better that,all groutifis ofa'doubehet6illd ,eemo and therefeie he would propose thatbrewers lbifld be allowd q iEFsetfi I untderthe ircuntandes al#esia&iQioWedtF It*fioweiteat of the public, Vs it won!d greatly -eXite c a case where thF fecings ofthe r.ul2i4glit t artculaili'con: culted. He was not-prepayed' t gthe lengtht - F 6b6n, :ssd learned gentleman (Mr. Brougham3 'jo had bill bv'which any partymight selI oeet (hotto beteniiiseR ihbiis' premises) withoutanyrestritionastollcetme '6hsidtheineer ests of those whohad embarkedlargecapitals itlsefet.trSeQflbeer and must be mast materiall affected by a ral udYswdden. change, andlookingat it also as connectedwith tle police ofli'eecou. try, ne was not disposed to go to suc'llengthsas to ptrmit the indicri- minate sale of beer, without any control of the ,aogistrateq- but 1 still he thouirht that the giving the means ot greater corhpetition in the retail trade would afFord that Rreater facilty for the sale of a wholesorae beverage which rotld tend materially to the publte be- nefit. He would therefore allow all public brewers to sell by retail where the article was -not to be drunk on their prernises, (thev, of course,foregoing the dllowance to whlich they would otherwise be en. titled as wholesale brewers.) (Hear, hear.) At the same time that he would agree to this extension of the trade,or rather of the compe. titian in it, he thonglht it was right tlat the brewer who was al- lowed to sell by retail should have a licence as sucb, and plsy for it. le would fix the price of the licernee not too high to destroy com- petition, nor too low to put In jeopardy those interests to which he had alluded, of persons who had embaiked their capital in the retail trade. Thepresent brewers' licence cost, for all who brewed 2,500 barrels in the year. 21. lOs.; and for all who brewed 40,000 barrels in the year, 751. The mode he propnsed to deal with brewers was this-(always keeping in view ths,t one of their objects wac to give relief to the smaller class of brewers, who were not unfrequently pub- licans, and that while they allowed a competition, they should at the same time reduce t)ue tax upon sudh)-he would say, that for all who brewed 20 barrels in the year alicerce w-osild be l0s., anifroin 20 to 100, 11. Ss. (He could not thCn go through the whole scale, as he had not the paper by hin.) The power of selling by retail (amongstbrewers)should be confined to brewers who paidforalicence 21., whichn would be for brewing from 100 to 1,000 barrels in the year. The brewer should aiso pav a retail licence, This would be an act of justice to the nublicans alrea4y in bqsl;ness because it would be putting them tinder considerable disadvantage, if those who were to sell in competition with them should-be exempted from paying for the pawer to sell by retail, while the publican was obliged to pay it, was also under the authority of the mnagistrates, and sub- lect to the billettdng of soldiers. He would there-ore propose that the brewer should pay for his licence to sell by retail sasti of 5guineas, inaddition to thesum which hewouldhave topay as a brewer. Thus, in case hebrewed over 100 barreLs,andnotexceedingl,000ir the year, he would have to pay 71. 5s.; and if he brewed above 2,000 barrels, he would have to pav in proDortior to the quantity. Another subject on which he would propose an alteration was that of excise licences. There had been several petitions presented this year, in which a remission of the du:y of those licences had been prayed. He thought it but fair that some reduction should be made with respect to that duty, and is was also but fair that it should be applied in the greatest degree to the small lines of business which were likely to su:ffr most by the competition. At all events lee would propose some reduction. The excise licences, as thelawrnow stood, were unon the followingsrale:-It the house in which the business was carried on was under501. a year, they paid two guineas excise liceace duty: if under 301., three guineas; and if under 201., foar guineas. In 1814 they had all paid two guineas. *Fhat lie should propose was, that in all cases where the rent was under 201. the ex- rise licenceshouldieone guinea; and all above 201. it should be three guineas. Thus it would be 3 reduction of tbree guineas in the case of the small houses, and of one in the others. There were other licences to which a publican was liable, in which be would elso pro- pose somne reduction; tor instance, in the licences for dealing in spirits. At present, all public-houses paying a rent of less then 151., pOaid 5 guineas for this licence; anti all under 201., 6 auineas. In 1814, the former paid 41. 1 ft., and the latter 51. 2s. Ho would put these two into one class, and make the duty on each 41. 1Os. In the next classes the duty would be-on a rental of from 201. to 251., six guineas; from 251. to 301., seven guineas; from 301. to 401., eight guineas; fiom 401. to 501., nine guineas; and 501. and up- wards, ten guineas. (The right honourible gentleman stated the differences between each of those sums, and the sums already chargeable, and also the sums on thc same rentals in Ibl4; but his tone was not sufficiently distinct to be audible ir. the gal- lery.) lie also wvould, he added, retluce the duty on wine licenceq to 21. 4s. The effect of those reductions would not be inconsiderable. The sum lost to the revenue would be 90,0001. or 100,000L ; but then thdre would be something gained by the licence on the retail brewer, and also by the increased consumption which would arise from the increased facility of sale and the competition. On the whole the. loss wrould -not cxceed 60,0001. or 70,0001., but at all events it would increase that competition bv whicli the working classes would be supplied with a better and cheaper beverage than they now could. I f it should be objected, that because of the property vested in public houses, they should not be touched, he would say, that such an argument would go the length of defendeng all rionopolv. He would, however, for the reasons he had stated, touch such pio. percy as lightly as possible: but, at the same time, the public inter- est required that something should be done to increase the compe~ tition, Ic concluded by moving his first resolution. .'.ir. BERNALr wished to be informed, whether the resolutions, when printed, were to be discussed before or after the recess. They appeared very complicated, and required serints consideration. Ihe CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, it would be better, if the house agreed to it, to have his tesolutions and the bill Printed together. Tbey wou'd present the subject in a full and Intelligible view, and it woxld be found that they were less compli- cated than the hon. went. imagxined. MIlIr. F. BUXTO: Iws ished to know whether the duties were to be on the beer or the malt ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, he would let the duty depend on the quantity of malt used to produce a given luantity of beer. MIr. MABERLY protested against the measure as most unjust. It professed to relievc the poorer classes, without having any real tendency to uitch an effcct; but it left the richer classes almost ex- *umpt from duty as before. After a few words from Captain MIAsERLs, the CHCANCELLOR Of the EXC7E<UER rea.ad his resolution again. Mlr. HUME thought the proposed plan would but increase rouble and inconvenience, without being productive of any real rood. Wrhy not put the duty on the rmalt, and let the brewer make he beer as strongas he pleased, as was the case in Ireland ? MIr. F. PAL'. Elt thought, that although the measure was not n every respect what he could have wished, vet it was still a very treat improvement on the existing system. The bonourable mem- )er for Aberdeen was not accurate in stating that the Door nmn was :o pay 24s. per barrel more than the rich man; *br in fact the poor nan, for want of the utensils, could not brew on so extensive a scale Is to reap all the advantages which the brewer had. Mr. WODEfHOUSE wished to know if the saccharometer was o be used in estimating the duity ? The CI?ANCEIJLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, the saceha- ometer was to be used only as a means for detecting frauds; but he estimation of the duty would be, to compel the brewver n addition to the notice which he wa; at present obliged uy law to give, to add at what rate he intended to brew the beer. tVhien the measure came in the form of a bill, it wvould be seen that g great many restrictions which at presentexistedwouldbe removed. Mfr. SPRING RICE wished to knoes whether the right honour- tble gentlemran meant to propose any thing respecting excise licen- ;esin ieland. The AHANCELLOR oftheEBXCHEQUER said, the whole of he system in Ireland was so complex, that he could not at present 'ay any thing to it, though it was notoutef his contemplation, and he loped ihat, before the end of thesession. he should be ableto propose tome remedy. Some of the townsin Ireland, heunderstood,which sent nembers to Parliament, paid higher for a spirit licence than others; Br what reason he knew not, but it wvas obvious for no valid one. tMr. IMONCK thought the measure would operate a great im- rovement in the state of the beer trade. In the neighbourhood ehere lie resided, it would, he was convinced, be received withi very ireat satisfaction. Alderman WVOOD wished to know how the rigbt hon. gentleman Ipposed, with sucui an extensive scale of duties, to protect the con- , Jefrom paving the higher instead of the lower dutv. /The CHIANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he did not Trofess to attempt that. It could TOt, indeed, be done writhout such L number of inconverient regulations as would prevent persons from ollowinig the trade. The consumer must, under his proposed regu- ation, take his chance, as he did at present, for being supplied with L proper quality of beer: it wonld be competent for the brewer to upply him with a great nianv qualities, varying according to the luty which lie would pay: if lie supplied an article as having paid lie higher duty which had only paid the lower, to detect that the onsanmer must exercise his ovrn saeacity, or depend upon the re- pectabilirv of the persons with whom lie dealt. Mr. GORDON wished to know what would be the difficulty in evying the duty on the malt instead of on the beer, as he understood o be the case at present in Ireland ? He supposed it was not to be onceived that the brewers in London brewed from any other mate- ials than malt and hops; and yet, from the riglit hon. gentleman's aying the duty on beer, it would seem as if he intended to catch hose persons who brewed from some other article. Mr. CALVERT said, if the hon. gentleman hadany doubt as to he articles of which London porter was composed, he would refer kinz to the evidence of MVIr. Carr, given before a comrittee nvf liat hottse, which would, he thought, aftord him co;.ueWte atisfaction. TIei CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUE R said he did not inderstand the honourablemember to have intended making a charge gainst any body, and certainly he (the Chancellor of the Exche- iuer) had no such intention ; but he did know officially that such rauds had been practiced, and convictions by juries lead foUolwed. f the course of proceeding recommended ly the hon. member for Iberdeen were agreed to, lhe feared that the facilities for such rauds would be greatly increased; and one of his reasons, certainlv, or adopting this duty was to render thnt mode of fraud more dAifi_ tult. But, without referring to any individual cases, it was clear that n every exciseable article frauds were committed and therefore n framing the regulations it was desirable to endeavour to pre- *cnt them.__ MIr. C ILVERT said he did not imagine that his honourable siend (Mr. Gordon) had intended to make any charge, but he had poken so enigmatically, that it night gire rise to miscon- tructisns. Air. lIUMIE said that he did not see how, if the duty were on nalt, this speces of fraud could be more easily practised.' He was ar froir, believing it was done by any reapeetatble brewers but if it v'erc practised, good beer could not be brewed; and then, according o tkte righethonourable gentleman's owrn principles, the brewecrwould et no customrnes. Mr. HUSKISSONsaid, the. hon. member appeared to forget hat the greater part of the public-houses were in. the Ibands of the Mrewers. Mr. BUXTON said, as his honourable friend (.3r.%Calvert) bad isen to defend the brewers fromn an indirect charge. he must now ise to repela direct one. It was not correct to state that thegreater tart of the public-hoiases were in the hands of tle brewers. The irm he was connected with supplied 700 hoases, of whichi onlys 57 3elonged to tbexn The CH ANCELItOR of-tbeE MEEQUlRl aid he thdeght .bat lie bad slafficiently guarded -against any.stppos&inputeido,i jystating that the regulations wereframed on era}ltiinciplWssj Atr. IfUSISSdN disglaimed tbe idea of inuikngjny;-cbargh Iginst thebrewcrs% but hew wouliaput i} to any gentdemitr,whethiek: hic number of Erree jUblic houses in tliq.o aiottexiely J2lr'. .MA idYeL l .t` kno -w.hethel he snderstooi the 'Ig t honoirable geiifeman, that the brewer was to be charged with b11e dut1 on the malt, and to be obliged to produce agven quantity f Beer rom it. 'The CLIANCB;LLOP of the ElXCHEQUER uil, the brewer, Iii t~dit~qnp iie ~ ~ wiie~i he intendled to - Th'oh'oreee'o9 he ~v wre lfe disose of an the hwuse X LISVOY'.QPtfl AITNORITY Ot~O hov~d fo~eav~to_bxinGKIt a BUIl to allow Perso-ns prose. c~te~ro ~1ow ~nL! dnfentlpt hv I HOUSE OF CO mMO?S, TUESDAY, APRIL 6.