HC Deb 26 February 1821 vol 4 cc945-6
Mr. Martin

, of Galway, said, that the motion he had to make was a proposition so self-evident, that he had equal difficulty in finding arguments in its favour and against it: it was so reasonable that merely to mention it was sufficient to procure it the strongest support. It was "for leave to bring in a bill to permit persons charged with capital crimes, to make their defence by counsel." The reverse was, in his view, so utterly inconsistent with the benignity of our criminal code; it was so completely unjust to refuse to a prisoner the advantage enjoyed by the Crown, that he would not attempt to argue it. Mr. Justice Blackstone had called it one of the anomalies of the English law, for which he was unable to account. He should move for leave to bring in the bill.

Mr. Lockhart

said, that there were many solid objections to the measure, and dwelt particularly on the delays that might result in the administration of justice from a change of the existing system. At present, the court was counsel for the prisoner, and he was not aware that within the last century any disadvantage had resulted from the exclusion of prisoners accused of capital crimes from the use of counsel.

Mr. Martin

maintained that the court did not act as counsel for prisoners, but remained neutral. He referred to the case of Bellingham, where the court had refused to allow delay for the arrival of witnesses to prove insanity.

Mr. Nolan

contended, that the case of Bellingham was directly against the hon. gentleman. Counsel had there, as in all similar instances, been allowed to make and support the application for delay. He hoped the House would make no alteration in the most humane system of jurisprudence that ever existed in any country of the world. The subject of the motion had engaged the attention of the bar. It was unquestionably one that might give rise to a diversity of opinion. But the result of the opinions which he had been able to collect, was, that the purposes of justice were best attained under the present system. There was seldom or never a case in which the judge did not act as counsel for the prisoner.

Leave was given to bring in the bill.