Commons Sitting of 17 June 1835

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Agra Government; Savings' Banks; Postage.
Petitions presented. By Sir CHARLES KNIGHTLEY, from Daventry, for the Repeal of the Duty on Spirit Licenses. By the same, and Mr. A. TREVOR,—for Protection to the Irish Protestant Church.—By Mr. A. TREVOR, from Stockton, against any Alteration in the Timber Duties; from the Trustees of the Middlesex and Essex Roads, against the Manure Toll Exemption Bill.

THE CHURCH—(IRELAND).
Mr. Arthur Trevor,in presenting several Petitions against the appropriation of the Irish Church Revenues from Gateshead, Chester-le-Street, and other places in the county of Durham, observed, that it having been affirmed on a former occasion by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Pease) that such Petitions as these were "got up" by the Clergy of the Diocese, he (Mr. A. Trevor) had caused inquiries to be made on the subject, and he had ascertained that though the Clergy had of course been active in promoting such petitions, they had never rendered themselves liable to the charge of getting them up in the way described by the hon. Member for South Durham.
Mr. Hedworth Lambtonsaid, that as one of the Members for the county of Durham, he should be extremely sorry that the House or the country should receive these petitions as an expression of the opinion of that county. In behalf not only of himself and his hon. Colleague, but of a great majority of their constitu-
844
ents, he would put in a total and distinct disclaimer of all the statements and assertions so lavishly put forth in these petitions. Let but the House look at the very limited number of signatures appended to these petitions, and then consider the extended population of the northern division of Durham, where the electoral body was not less than 5,000, and they would at once see and acknowledge that such petitions could not be looked upon as expressing the opinions of that portion of the county. There were two points in one of these petitions, which he was sorry had not been read, on which he would make a few observations. One of these was an assertion that the measure contemplated by the Home Secretary tended to the speedy destruction of the Protestant Church, and the encouragement of Popery. Yet what was that measure in sober fact? It was a most necessary and praiseworthy plan for rescuing millions of Catholics from contributing to the support of a Church to which they did not belong, and to put an end to the abuse of giving clergymen large incomes for doing nothing. It was a most cutting insult to the Protestant Church to say that it would be injured by such a measure as this. The next point referred to by the Petitioners, was the alleged violation, by the Catholic Members of that House, of the oath they had taken on entering it. No calumny could be more gross or false. He felt it his duty to express his firm and conscientious belief that the Catholic Members were fully as incapable of breaking an oath, and as deeply impressed with the sacred solemnity of its obligation, as any men, whether in the House or out of it. If the Catholic Members were to be debarred from giving their votes on this subject, what, he would ask, was the use of Catholic Emancipation?
Mr. Harlandsaid, that of the ten Members for Durham county, not less than seven had voted for the appropriation of the Irish Church Revenues; nor could it be said, that this majority did not represent the opinions of their constituents; for at the last election one of the main subjects spoken of from the hustings was this very measure, the support of which was forcibly impressed upon the Members in receiving the support of the electors. He would not go into any details as to the means which had been had recourse to in getting up those petitions; he would only

845
express his decided conviction, that if the question were fairly and honestly and truly put before the people of that county, a very unquestionable majority would affirm the proposition. It was a measure which, so far from injuring the Protestant religion, would put it on a firm footing, not only in the affections and love of the people, but in their reason and judgment.
Mr. Cuthbert Ripponstated, as a matter of undeniable fact, that these petitions were got up by the clergy, the authors being none other than the pious and political brotherhood known as the Dean and Chapter of Durham, aided by the patriotic body called the Durham Conservative Society. It was set forth that these petitions conveyed the general opinions of the men of the county of Durham. Now, in Gateshead there were 508 electors; of these but twenty had signed the Petition from Gateshead. Gateshead contained a population of 15,000, yet among all these the reverend petition-hawkers had not been able to raise the other fifty-eight names appended to the petition, for not a few of this number were collected from the neighbourhood—in one or two cases from a distance of not less than ten miles. With these facts before their eyes, the House of Commons would not for an instant, he trusted, allow such petitions as these to be foisted upon them as expressing the real feeling of a great and influential county. The two respectable bodies he had spoken of above, were but too happy in having persuaded the hon. Member opposite to become as it were the conduit-pipe of the overflowings of their religious bigotry and political rancour.
Mr. Arthur Trevorsaid, that his opinion of the bodies alluded to, was so very different from that expressed in no measured terms by the hon. Member, that he was very proud of being thought worthy to become their conduit-pipe. It had always been his principle, however, to bring forward any petitions with the presentation of which he might be honoured in an open and candid way, to afford hon. Members every facility for giving their opinions on the contents of them. His position in reference to his constituents, was one of great difficulty and delicacy, but being the only Member for that part of the country who sat on that (the Opposition) side of the House, it was not unnatural that persons entertaining opinions
846
similar to his own, should confide to him the presentation of petitions to the House on matters of great political moment.
Mr. Pease,as one of the Members for Durham, wished to state the manner in which those petitions were got up, especially as his former statement on that point had been controverted by the hon. Member opposite. He had received a letter from a most respectable constituent of his on the subject, which he would read to the House. The hon. Member accordingly read the letter. The writer stated, that having seen his (Mr. Pease's) statement contradicted by the hon. Member, Mr. Trevor, he begged to furnish him, with evidence as to the way in which those petitions were got up. The writer said, that he had signed one of those petitions, and that he was not only ignorant of the nature of its contents, but that he had been grossly deceived on that point by one of the persons who had been sent round the county with blank sheets to obtain signatures to the petition. He (the writer) asked that person if the petition contained anything contrary to the Motion of Lord John Russell, and his reply was "no; not in any shape." In consequence of that statement, he (the writer) affixed his signature to the blank sheet. He had since conversed with others who had signed similar petitions, and who complained of having been treated in the same way. The writer said, that when the sheets with signatures were filled, they were sent to Durham, and pasted on the petition there, which had been got up by the clergy. His correspondent, in conclusion, had appealed to him to know, as this petition was a gross lie and misrepresentation, whether it was not one which should be expunged from the records of the House? Many who had signed those petitions had been deceived like the writer of this letter, though he was ready to say that several of the names he saw to them were the signatures of persons entertaining such sentiments as the petitions expressed. In voting for the appropriation Clause, he had voted in accordance with the feelings and sentiments of the great majority of his constituents.
Petition to lie on the Table.

REGISTRATION OF VOTERS.
Lord John Russellsaid, that he did not know whether the House was now prepared to adopt the Resolution mentioned the other

847
night; but perhaps the better way would be to move it, and then, if it were thought necessary, to postpone it for consideration. The Resolution of 11th June, 1833, which had been lately rescinded, directed the Speaker to order the Returning-Officer of any borough to omit in the register any names of voters struck from the poll by Election Committees. It was obvious that this course would not apply to voters who coming too late, were improperly inserted on the poll, although very properly included in the register; but it would most justly apply to those who the Committee decided ought never to have been included in the register at all. To that extent he proposed that the Resolution should go; but another question might arise—a question that had been suggested to him by a Member of the Ipswich Committee: it was this—whether persons reported to have been guilty of bribery should thereupon, by order of the Speaker, have their names erased from the register? It seemed objectionable that any person found guilty of bribery should have the right of voting again at an election, perhaps immediately succeeding; but on consideration he thought it would be unwise to attempt to give to a Resolution of the House the force of an enactment. The House unquestionably was the ultimate judge of the right of voting; but bribery was a legal crime to which a Resolution of the House ought not to apply, but the law should be allowed to take its due course. He would not enter further into this point, but it might be proper to insert a provision regarding it in a Bill. He would read his Resolution with a view to have it printed. It would run thus:—"That in all cases where a Select Committee, appointed to try the merits of an election for any county, city, or borough, report to this House that the names of any voters ought not to have been placed in the register of voters, or that the names of any voters have been unduly omitted from such register, Mr. Speaker shall issue his directions thereupon to the Clerk of the Peace, Town Clerk, or other Officer, with whom the register of voters of such county, city, or borough is deposited, to amend such register, by striking out or adding names to such register, as the case may be, in conformity to the Report of such Select Committee."
Mr. Callaghancalled the attention of the House to the peculiar case of the last
848
election for the city of Cork, the merits of which had been tried by a Committee, and decided in his favour. The Committee had decided that a certain class of voters had no right to poll; these were nonresident freemen, who also had registered without swearing to residence. About 200 of these had been decided against by the Committee, and their names had been struck off the poll; but there were, perhaps, as many more, whose cases had not been examined, but if examined, would be found exactly similar. The question was, what should be done with the latter, who might occasion just the same trouble and expense to a candidate at any future election, by effecting, if he might so say, a fraudulent return? Justice to the constituency required that these also should be struck off.
Lord John Russellthought that as the Resolution was worded, that class of voters would be included.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that no Committee had yet given any opinion upon the right of these voters, and, on inquiry, their situation might be found to be different.
Mr. Sheilsaid, that it was quite clear that this was a grievance that ought to be remedied, and the Cork election illustrated it. A number of persons had been registered who had no right to vote; some of these had been struck out by the Committee, and others remained—their cases not having been investigated. At the Cork election, the barrister who attended on the part of the sheriff, said, that his opinion was, that they were not entitled to vote; but as they were upon the register, he felt himself precluded from rejecting them. If another election were to take place to-morrow, many of these would offer themselves, and on the same ground could not be refused, excepting after the inquiry of a Committee, which might cost the candidate 5,000 l. or 6,000 l. It was incumbent, in all humility he said it, upon the noble Lord to bring in a Bill to remedy this evil. Another evil was, that in the county for which he (Mr. Sheil) sat, there was but one polling place; the county was seventy miles long, and many of the voters he had to convey the whole distance at a heavy expense. A third evil was, that in Ireland elections lasted for five days. If the sheriff admitted improper votes after incurring all the cost of the election, he might be unable to establish his right under a sum of 5,000.l or 6,000 l., with, a

849
chance that his petition would be voted frivolous and vexatious.
Mr. Charles Bullerthought that the case quoted by the hon. Member shewed that there was something defective in the mode of registration adopted in Ireland, and he was of opinion that the registration in Ireland, as in England, should be annual.
Mr. Shawwas anxious that the law on the subject should be known and clear, and complained that the decisions of the Youghall and Ennis Committees were directly opposed to those of the Longford and Monaghan Committees, as to revising the decision of the Registering Barrister. Even if the law were bad, it would be better that it should be uniform.
Mr. Humesaid, that he was only waiting until the Attorney-General for Ireland was in his place, in order to bring in a Bill to remedy the evil.
Sir Robert Peelremarked, that the objection of the hon. and learned Member for Tipperary (Mr. Sheil) was applicable in principle, whether registration took place every year, as in England, or only once in eight years, as in Ireland. What he had said was this—that the Committee decided that certain voters of Cork were disqualified; but that certain other voters, whose cases had not been entered into, were equally disqualified; and that they ought not to be allowed to vote again, should an election occur. It certainly aggravated the case where the registration lasted eight years; but the principle was the same where the registration was every year. He thought the case of the hon. Member for Cork a strong one; for if two hundred other voters had no more right to poll than the two hundred struck off by the Committee they might give the same trouble at the next election that those already struck off had occasioned at the last. It seemed out of the question to leave the register so defective; but the difficulty was, to find a tribunal to determine who did, or who did not, come within the rule laid down by the Committee. If there had been no examination into these cases by the Committee, how was the point to be decided? It seemed to him better to adopt the Resolution of the noble Lord, and to apply some subsequent enactment to cases like that of the city of Cork.
A Member (of the Cork Committee) remarked, that it had been agreed on both
850
sides that all voters of a certain class should be struck off.
Mr. O'Connellwas quite sure that nothing effectual could be done without legislation. He begged respectfully to ask the House what reason there was that there should not be an annual revision of the registry in Ireland as in England? The inconvenience of octennial registration was this, that in eight years a thousand changes might take place, and yet the certificate would be conclusive, or could only be set aside at an enormous expense by a Committee. He would mention Youghall as a place with which he was somewhat familiar: there registration took place at a distance of seventy miles; every man who registered had that distance to travel. Ought that to continue? The Attorney-General had asked him what suggestion he would make as a remedy; but he could hardly venture to give any opinion, lest it should be said that it was his work; but whose work soever the remedy might be, the evil ought not to remain. In the city of Dublin the House had called for a return of those who obtained their freedom by birth, servitude, or marriage, or by grace especial, and the Return was, that they admitted nobody of right; yet they were every day admitting by virtue of birth, servitude, or marriage, and Chief Baron Joy had held that it was a good right of voting. He (Mr. O'Connell) thought that the annual revision should be subject to appeal both ways; at present there was an appeal from the Registering Barrister to a Judge of the Superior Courts, but the appeal ought to lie as well for improper admission as improper rejection. It might be conclusive for twelve months, but not longer; and thus everybody before an election would know who was entitled to vote, and the enormous, frightful, and, he would say, disgraceful expense of a scrutiny avoided. Some evil might indeed arise from the Barrister and the Judge being both wrong: but the error could only last for a year, or at all events the chance was, that then it would be corrected. He hoped that the Attorney-General would consent to bring in a Bill to amend the law in these respects, and that before another week elapsed it would be laid upon the Table.
The Attorney-General,in the absence of his hon. and learned Friend who held the same situation in Ireland, admitted that it was of great importance that a Bill

851
should be introduced to amend Irish registration. There was no reason why it should not be annual, and no reason why an Irish election should last five days; and he hoped that in England an election would, ere long, be concluded in one day. He entirely agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, that there ought to be some appeal from the revising Barrister, and that afterwards the register should be conclusive for a year.
Lord Stanleywould not enter at large into the Question, but agreed that Irish registration admitted and required amendment. He rose principally to remind those who were not Members of the Parliament which passed the Reform Act, that in England up to that period there existed no system of registration; in Ireland there was a system, and although it was generally admitted to be defective, it was thought better not to change it until the result of the experiment in England was known. There was no reluctance to put both countries on the same footing, but a desire to see first how the new plan worked in England. There was at the time great difference of opinion among the Irish Members in particular as to the three points of separate polling places, length of registration, and duration of elections. These were matters discussed at the time, and it was finally agreed that it would be wiser not to make the change until it was known how the new plan operated in this country.
Mr. Sergeant Jacksondid not think that the hon. Member for Dublin had fairly stated the case respecting the Corporation of Dublin, and he said this with the more confidence, as he had been engaged in the case professionally. The Corporation contended that no person had a right to his freedom either by birth, servitude, or marriage; but they contended that they were bound to consider the circumstances of each case. The Corporation had always claimed this discretionary power, and it had been admitted by the Court of King's Bench. The decision of Chief Baron Joy was also in favour of the point contended for by the Corporation. The point upon which that learned Judge gave his decision had been raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and had been opposed by himself. At the same time the Judge also admitted that any person had a right to have his name entered on the register if he showed the certificate of the town clerk.
Mr. O'Connellwas anxious to observe that all that he knew of the judgment of Chief Baron Joy was from the newspapers; he was not in Dublin at the time Chief Baron Joy gave his decision. The point then was, the freedom was claimed as a right, and the city of Dublin refused to admit any as a matter of right. Since the year 1792 the Catholics had been entitled to take up their freedom in Dublin, and yet none had been admitted, though many had become entitled to their freedom either by being the sons of freemen, or having served an apprenticeship, or from having married the daughters of freemen. That Corporation excluded all that it chose, and admitted none but such as it pleased.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonconsidered the point suggested by the Attorney-General to be one of very great importance, and he hoped that it would become a matter of legislation—namely, that whenever the right of voting had been properly adjudicated upon the appeal tribunal, that it would be considered as finally settled. He did not think that it was right that the vote should be disputed after it had been fairly put on the register. He trusted that very shortly a proper appeal tribunal would be established, before which disputed votes could be determined, and after the decision of which it would not be allowable for any person to impeach a vote. This principle obtained in the ancient system in Scotland, and whenever a name was placed on the roll, no person could dispute the validity of the vote, provided the right on which it was held was not transferred—neither the Court of Session nor the House of Commons had ever done so.
Debate on the Resolution postponed.

LIMITATION OF POLLS BILL.
Mr. Elphinstone moved that this Bill be committed.
Lord John Russellwas favourable to the principle of the Bill, but he would suggest to the hon. Member who had introduced it, whether it would not be better to refer this Bill to the Committee which was now sitting to inquire into the present mode of registration.
Sir Robert Peelthought that it was desirable, if it could be so arranged, to diminish the period for taking the poll. If this were done he had no doubt it would lessen the expense of elections, tend to

853
put a stop to intimidation, and also to lessen bribery. The subject, however, involved so many small points of detail that he did not think it could well be considered in a Committee of the whole House. He, therefore, agreed in the suggestion of the noble Lord, that it perhaps would be advantageous to refer it to the consideration of the Registration Committee. He felt very much disposed to adopt the principle of the measure, but looking into the details, he did not think that they were by any means as perfect as they might be rendered. If a measure like the present were adopted, it would become a matter of imperative necessity to have a greater number of polling places than were now allowed. He was sure that the hon. Member would attain his object much better by going before a Committee up stairs, than by persisting in having a Committee of the whole House.
Mr. Humehad prepard a Bill on this subject, but had abstained from introducing it until he had seen what the Registration Committee intended to do. He would also recommend his hon. Friend either to wait till that Committee had made its report, or at once to refer the Bill to that Committee, or any other. It ought not to escape recollection, that a Committee last year recommended that the chief provision of this Bill should receive the sanction of the Legislature. The Registration Committee had met that day, and had made great progress with their labours, and he thought that very shortly after Friday next they ought to see the Report laid on the Table. He, for one, was most anxious to promote the success of the principle of the measure, although he did not think that the details were sufficiently explicit.
Mr. Charles Bullerrecommended the hon. Member for Hastings not to adopt the suggestions made to him without due deliberation. If the hon. Gentleman sent the Bill to a Committee up stairs, it was not likely that he would get it passed this Session. It had been suggested to his hon. Friend to refer the Bill to the Registration Committee, as if that Committee had not now sufficient work to perform. He was sure if that Committee went through the matters referred to them in a satisfactory manner, that they could not bring the labours to a close before the end of the Session. His hon. Friend had no chance of carrying his Bill at present, if be did not get it committed at once.
Mr. Ewartrecommended that this subject should not be mixed up with others, but that it should be referred to a Committee up stairs, with directions to report on it with as little delay as possible.
Mr. Aglionbydid not oppose the second reading of the Bill, but he suggested that it should be postponed, as he knew that the hon. Member for Middlesex had prepared a Bill on the subject. It appeared to be the wish of all parties that a Bill on the principle of this measure should be passed into a law, as it would tend to lessen the expenses of elections and put down corruption. From what had come out before the Election Committees, it appeared that nearly all the acts of bribery were committed on the second day of the election, and he had no doubt that by increasing the number of polling places, any election might be got through in one day. The Bill was certainly short and simple, but he did not think that the machinery was sufficient. He happened to know that the Bill the hon. Member for Middlesex had prepared on the subject, was much better in that respect.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerrecommended the hon. Member for Hastings to refer the Bill to a Committee up stairs. He was favourable to the principle of the Bill, and felt satisfied that the House would not do its duty if it did not alter the election-law on the subject.
Colonel Woodfelt convinced that if the polling was to be completed in one day, that it would be necessary greatly to increase the number of polling places in all counties. In the county he represented, there were 2,000 voters, and only one polling place, and it would be impossible that they could all record their votes in one day.
Colonel Sibthorpthought that it would be equally necessary to increase the number of polling places in towns. He was favourable to the principle of the measure, but he trusted that the hon. Gentleman would consent to refer it to a Committee. It was not a party question, but a matter of great importance both to Whigs and Tories.
Mr. Warburtonrecommended the hon. Member to withdraw the Bill for the present, and bring it forward in an amended form. He very much doubted whether they could not in this Bill get rid of one of the three questions put to the voter on his tendering his vote. The question he

855
alluded to was whether he possessed the same qualification which he did at the time of registration.
Sir Matthew White Ridleyreminded the House that there were several Bills on the Table for altering many important parts of the Reform Bill. There was one for altering the mode of registration; another for preventing intimidation; a third for the better prevention of bribery, and this for taking the poll in one day. If they went on in that way, they would repeal step by step the whole of the Reform Bill. He would suggest that all the Bills should be referred to a Committee up stairs, for the purpose of consolidating them. They ought to be extremely cautious in their proceedings respecting this matter, lest in their anxiety to produce good they did great mischief. He doubted whether this Bill, if passed into a law, would diminish the expense to candidates; on the contrary, he believed that it would greatly increase it.
Mr. William Duncombewished to know from the noble Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire, whether he intended to propose to increase the number of polling places in that Riding.
Lord Morpethreplied, that if that Bill passed it would be highly desirable to increase the number of polling places.
Mr. Ordfelt satisfied that the hon. Member for Newcastle was in error in supposing that this Bill would increase the expense of elections. The chief expense of elections in counties was carrying the voters to the polling places. If the distance between them was diminished, the charge of conveyance would be greatly lessened. He thought that it was also desirable to keep the measures for amending certain points in the Reform Bill perfectly distinct from each other. The course pursued by the hon. Member for Hastings appeared to him to be most judicious; but the Bill as it now stood would not carry the intentions of his hon. Friend into effect.
The House went into a Committee. The clauses of the Bill were agreed to, and the House resolved itself into Committee on the Colonial Passengers' Bill.

PASSENGERS TO THE COLONIES.
On the Clause being read relative to the casks which shall be used to contain water for the voyage,
A Member suggested that the owners
856
should be restricted from using any that had been previously employed for any other purposes.
Mr. Humecould see no objection to the use of wine or brandy casks. He thought it would be quite sufficient to declare "that the officer shall satisfy himself that the casks had not been filled with any thing to render the water unhealthy or impure."
Mr. W. Smith O'Brienreminded hon. Members that if the officer were not allowed to use his discretion, oil casks might be used, which would render the water very unpleasant if not unhealthy. He was aware that many vessels left Limerick last season with emigrants, and all water on board of them was contained in oil casks.
Mr. Goulburnadmitted that it would be advisable to specifically prohibit oil casks.
The Clause was agreed to.
Mr. Humecalled attention to the fifth Clause, empowering the inspecting officer to examine the provisions, &c, immediately previous to sailing. He thought this interference would be likely to cause injurious delays to vessels on the point of sailing, and suggested that the officer should be required to complete his search a certain number of days previous—say three; or, better still, that the provisions should be examined and approved of before shipment.
Mr. Warburtonthought that the powers proposed to be conferred on Custom House officers of absolutely rejecting a stock of provisions already shipped, might be tendered the source of great abuse in outports, where it would be difficult to obtain a fresh supply, except from a favourite of the officer, and at a ruinous price.
Mr. Humewas much against the minute and vexatious legislation pursued in Bills of this nature. He thought it would be quite as consistent to order an inspection of the steam-boiler of a packet preparatory to every trip, for it might blow up and destroy the passengers if not kept in a sound working condition, as had indeed frequently happened.
Mr. Goulburnvindicated the principle of the Bill, which only interfered to protect those whom it was not the interest of the shipowners to take care of. The latter would look to the sufficiency of their boilers for the sake of their vessel, while it was found by experience that in many

857
cases they allowed the poor passengers to starve.
Mr. Laboucherewas anxious that no restrictions should be imposed on ship-owners which could be avoided, but the general poverty of emigrants made it necessary that the Legislature should protect them. Such dreadful scenes had been heard of in consequence of ships proceeding to sea imperfectly equipped and provided, that the Legislature was bound to prevent such scenes if possible.
Mr. W. Smith O'Brienknew that out of 2,500 poor emigrants who left Limerick last year, 500 died on the passage. Vessels had set sail for America in a state not fit to cross the channel to England, the proof of which was that from the third day after their departure the pumps were obliged to be kept going all the voyage.
Mr. Roebuckbelieved that the loss of life was caused rather by the ships being unseaworthy than by the want of provisions on the voyage. He must add that precautions were necessary, for last year there were 30,000 emigrants (for the most part quite destitute) sent out to Canada without any supplies to keep them from starving during the five or six months that the country was bound up in frost and snow.
Mr. Claysubmitted that the example of the East-India Company (with respect to the systematic inspection to which their ships were subjected previous to a voyage) was the best that could be followed in the present case. The happy effects of this course was that the Company's insurance did not amount to one-sixth of the ordinary rates, for no ship of theirs was allowed to sail unless first approved sea-worthy. Their ship-stores never spoiled or afforded subject of complaint; in fact, no bad provisions were offered to their vessels, for it was well known that they would previously be inspected. If emigrant vessels were compelled to adopt similar salutary arrangements, they would no longer hear the just complaints of poor passengers respecting the deficient quantity or deteriorated quality of their provisions.
Mr. Barnardsuggested the propriety of prohibiting the employment of vessels in the emigrant service that were twenty-two years old.
Mr. Warburtonstrongly objected to the restriction. It would act as a premium on the building of a bad class of vessels,
858
designed not to last even twenty years. It would be much safer to trust to the character of each vessel on Lloyd's list.
Mr. Humerecommended the adoption of the practice of Government, which caused a strict inspection of vessels that offered to take troops abroad, and suggested that no vessel should be allowed to take passengers on board unless similarly inspected and approved. The age of vessels could never be a satisfactory guide. He had sailed very safely in a ship seventy-two years old.
Mr. Thorneleycomplained of the clause restricting the export of spirits in emigrant vessels. He thought a cargo in pipes or hogsheads as safe as one in bales.
An Hon. Memberstated, that he had known cases where the captains had taken out a large stock of spirits, apparently for exportation, but really to sell to the passengers for his own profit. In cases where the passengers mutinied, and took the control of the vessel into their own hands the presence of such a stock was particularly dangerous.
Sir G. Greythought that the only practicable way to prevent these evils was to prohibit the export of any spirits in vessels fitted out to take passengers.
Mr. Humehad no objection to impose a penalty on masters or mates who should sell any spirits to emigrants on a voyage, but he did not think it just to limit the owners' right to ship what cargo he pleased.
The Bill went through Committee, and the House resumed.

ROMAN CATHOLIC MARRIAGE BILL.
On the Motion of Mr. Lynch, the House resolved itself into a Committee on the Roman Catholic Marriage Bill.
The first Clause was read as follows:
"Be it enacted, by the King's most excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords spiritual and temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, that from and after the passing of this Act, so much of an Act passed in the nineteenth year of the reign of his Majesty King George the Second, intituled, 'An Act for annulling all Marriages to be celebrated by any Popish priest between Protestant and Protestant, or between Protestant and Papist, and to amend and make more effectual an Act passed in this Kingdom in the reign of her late Majesty Queen Anne, intituled, "An Act for the more effectual preventing the taking away and marrying children against the wills of their parents or

859
guardians,"' as relates to Marriages celebrated by Popish Priests between Protestant and Papist, shall be and the same is hereby absolutely repealed; but nevertheless so as not to render valid or in any manner affect any marriage, the invalidity of which is now or hath been disputed or questioned under or by virtue of the said Act, in any of his Majesty's Courts Ecclesiastical or Civil in Great Britain or Ireland."
Mr. Shawobjected to the Bill on two grounds; first, that it would remove the great practical impediment to the celebration of clandestine Marriages by Roman Catholic priests, imposed by the 19th George 2nd., and expressly left unrepealed by the Act introduced by the Attorney-General for Ireland (Mr. Perrin) in the year 1832, when he did Repeal the Law enacting the penalties—which he (Mr. Shaw) admitted were unduly severe—of death, and fine of 500 l.; so far only, however, as regarded the Roman Catholic priest; and his (Mr. Shaw's) second objection was, the partial nature of this legislation; for while it removed the penalty of death from the Roman Catholic priest, it left, according to the strict law, the degraded Protestant clergyman subject to it.—[Mr. Perrin: "No, no!"]—He must insist that such was the law, and that the present Bill would remove the only remaining obstacle in the case of the Roman Catholic clergyman, that was the nullity of the marriage. While he objected to this partial charge, he deprecated as much as any man, the present state of the marriage law in Ireland, and was as anxious for its improvement on a broad and comprehensive basis.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin, was wrong in supposing that this Bill would encourage clandestine marriages. Such marriages occurred at present, and would continue to occur, whether they passed this measure or not, the effect of which would be to take the penalty of such marriages off the innocent, and fix it upon the guilty parties. It was not right that the children should suffer; if any one was to suffer, let it be the parents. The present system encouraged young men of the Established Church in Ireland to marry Catholic females of a rank in life below themselves for the purpose of seduction. Now, the present Bill would defeat that object; it would no longer be a mock marriage; and if the young Protestant gentleman united him-
860
self in this way with a Catholic female, that person would be actually his wife, and the innocent children would escape the punishment of illegitimacy which they now suffered. He should like to see the statute referred to by the right hon. Gentleman Mr. Shaw, for he did not believe that any such law existed. The present law was the last remnant of the penal code, and ought forthwith to be repealed. The penalty for celebrating marriages between Roman Catholics and Protestants was done away with, and the only persons now punished were the innocent children who suffered for their parents' vices.
Colonel Percevalsaid, that on a former occasion, when the Bill was in progress through the House to do away with the penalty of 500 l. that then existed for a Roman Catholic priest marrying a Roman Catholic and a Protestant, it was urged as an inducement to the House to do away the penalty, that the marriage so celebrated would be illegal, and now it is urged as a reason for legalising the marriage, that the penalty has been abolished, and therefore that the law, as it at present exists, ought to be repealed. By the Bill at present before the House, a Roman Catholic priest might marry when he pleased, and whom he pleased. The Bill imposed no restriction whatever; the priest might enter the House of any Protestant, and celebrate a marriage, at any hour he pleased, with perfect impunity; and this, he maintained, was more than a Protestant clergyman could do. He (Colonel Perceval) protested he could not see why the Roman Catholic people should consider themselves aggrieved in being obliged, when they intermarry with Protestants, to have the ceremony performed by a Protestant clergyman. If the Roman Catholics would but place themselves within the law, and submit to the publication of banns, or that a license should be procured before the ceremony of marriage could be celebrated, then all the objects sought would be attained; but they would not submit to that which Protestants were obliged to submit to, and therefore he considered it unjust to allege that they were in the slightest degree aggrieved. More than two years ago, he (Colonel Perceval) impressed upon the present Attorney-General for Ireland the necessity of bringing in a general marriage law for Ireland; and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman, aided by the advice of

861
the learned civilian (Dr. Lushington) would introduce a general measure, which would not place one sect above another, or permit a Roman Catholic priest to do that which a Protestant clergyman could not do legally. Nothing could be more ruinous to the peace of families than giving facilities for the celebration of clandestine marriages; and, for his part, he could wish to see the British Parliament take a lesson from the French in this respect, by placing the names of the parties, who were about to enter into the contract, for a fortnight previously before the public. By adopting such a course, much of the heart-scalding which was known to result from clandestine marriages would be saved; and he considered that the feelings of parents ought, not to be altogether overlooked, as was the case in the Bill then before the House. Under all the circumstances of the case, he felt it his duty to protest against the removal of the only check that now existed upon the celebration of clandestine marriages in Ireland.
Mr. Shawsaid, he had got from the Library the statute to which he had referred, and as the hon. Gentleman (Mr. O'Connnell) had denied its existence, and the right hon. Gentleman (the Attorney-General for Ireland) insisted that it did not inflict the penalty of death on degraded clergymen, he hoped the House would allow him to read it. It was the 12th George 1st., c. 3, entitled, "An Act to prevent marriages by degraded clergymen and Popish priests," and provided, "that if any Popish priest, or any degraded clergyman, shall celebrate any marriage between two Protestants, or reputed Protestants, or between a Protestant, or reputed Protestant, and a Papist, such Popish priest, and such degraded clergyman, shall be and is hereby declared to be guilty of felony, and shall suffer death as a felon."
Dr. Lushingtonsaid, that no man was more anxious that a general marriage law should be passed than he was, and he was glad to hear the gallant Member for Sligo state that he approved of the French system; but would the gallant Member guarantee that a general marriage law would pass the House of Lords? All former attempts at legislation upon the subject had failed. The law, as it at present stood, as had been truly observed by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin,
862
was the last remnant of the penal code, and until every vestige, as well as every recollection of it, had been expunged, the people of Ireland would not, and they ought not, to be contented. He should support the Bill before the Committee in all its stages.
Mr. Sergeant Jacksonsaid, that he did not understand his right hon. Friend (Mr. Shaw) in the observations he made to advocate a continuance of the penal code—on the contrary, what his right hon. Friend urged, and what he (Mr. Jackson) demanded, was a law bearing equally upon all classes of his Majesty's subjects—which the Bill before the House manifestly was not. He maintained that the view taken of the law by his right hon. Friend was correct, as he had abundantly proved by the law he had just quoted. By the law, as cited by his right hon. Friend, if a Roman Catholic priest or a degraded Protestant clergyman celebrated a clandestine marriage, he subjected himself to the penalty of death. That law was so far repealed as regarded the Roman Catholic clergyman, and a penalty of 500 l. was substituted, but it never was repealed so far as regarded a degraded Protestant clergyman.—[Mr. Perrin recollected a conviction of a degraded clergyman on circuit in the sum of 500 l.]—He did not mean to justify convictions, the circumstances connected with which he had no knowledge of; but he was shewing that the penalty of death was never repealed as regarded a degraded Protestant clergyman. In the opposition he offered to this measure, he disclaimed all party views. The descent of property depended upon the law of marriage. He wished the Government of the country would take the matter up, and with the able assistance of the learned doctor (Lushington) introduce a general law that would press equally upon all classes. If such a measure were introduced, it should meet with his support. What he deprecated was, the existence of unequal laws. Every person acquainted with Ireland, knew that marriages in that country were to the priest the sources of great emolument. He was surprised if that cry came from Members conversant with the state of Ireland. He would repeat, that marriages formed a principal source of their income; and not content with the facilities that existed of Roman Catholics marrying persons of their own creed, this Bill afforded

863
them the greatest facilities for celebrating marriages between Roman Catholics and Protestants. Why, he would ask, were the members of Protestant families to be subject to the intrusion of a Roman Catholic priest, and why should he be permitted to celebrate a marriage in their families without, the publication of banns or the obtaining of a license? If a Protestant clergyman celebrated a marriage without banns having been duly published, or a license obtained, he was subject to be degraded, and if he celebrated a second marriage under similar circumstances, he was liable to the punishment of death. The measure then before the House would have the effect of rendering the peace of families insecure, and the descent of property uncertain; and under all the circumstances of the case, he thought the House would be acting in a most unsafe way by passing the Bill then under consideration.
Mr. O'Dwyersupported the Bill. The evils which the Gentlemen deprecated already existed, and the measure would remove them. In the manner of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down, the House had a fair sample of the faction who had so long domineered over Ireland. The hon. and learned Gentleman contended that an exemplary and pious Roman Catholic clergyman, and a degraded Protestant clergyman should be placed on the same footing, and for this his liberality the Roman Catholics in that House, as well as the Roman Catholics of Ireland, could not but feel grateful.
Mr. Shawcould not avoid congratulating the hon. and learned Member for Drogheda (Mr. O'Dwyer) on his new office of a lecturer on gentlemanly manners and temperate language; the House should know exactly how the law stood at present; the 12th George 1st. inflicted the penalty of death both on Roman Catholic priest and degraded clergyman; then the 33rd, George 3rd, superadded the fine of 500 l. in the case of the Roman Catholic priest, but omitted the degraded clergyman; the latter statute raised a doubt by construction as to the penalty of death remaining against the Roman Catholic priest on account of the enactment of a mitigated penalty, but this did not affect the degraded clergyman; then the Attorney-General for Ireland (Mr. Perrin) brought in the Act of 1832, expressly repealing both those acts, as far as related
864
to the Roman Catholic priest, but left the degraded clergyman untouched; also not interfering with, but expressly saving the Act which rendered such a clandestine marriage by a Roman Catholic priest void, and the present Bill was to render the marriage valid when between Protestant and Papist, but not when between two Protestants—adopting, in that respect, the principle of partiality in the case of the Roman Catholic, which pervaded the Act he had referred to of the Attorney-General for Ireland passed in 1832; this he (Mr. Shaw) considered unworthy legislation.
Mr. Lynchsaid, that all the arguments that had been urged upon the other side, bore upon the Bill of 1833, but had no reference to the measure then under discussion. The present Bill removed no penalties; they were removed by the Bill of 1833. The law, as stated by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Shaw) with respect to degraded clergymen, was certainly in force, and ought to be repealed. All that he (Mr. Lynch) asked, was, that Roman Catholic clergymen should be placed on the same footing with Dissenting clergymen. All he asked was, that if a Protestant should yield to the conscientious feelings of the person he is about to marry, and has the ceremony performed by a Roman Catholic clergyman, that the marriage should not be void.
Mr. Ruthvenbelieved the Bill would prevent clandestine marriages, for the Protestants would be convinced that they could not afterwards escape their natural consequences.
Mr. Williams Wynnobjected to power being granted to Roman Catholic priests of celebrating marriages between Roman Catholics and Protestants.
Mr. Perrinsaid, that he had been under the impression that there did not any such penalty exist as that referred to by his learned Friends opposite, for such a law had never been carried into execution; but if it existed, he was ready to remove it. There was no Marriage-law in Ireland, and the peculiarity of the case was this—that whereas if no ceremony whatever were performed between a Roman Catholic and Protestant, and that they acknowledged themselves to be man and wife, the marriage was lawful, but if a marriage were celebrated between the parties by a Roman Catholic Priest, the marriage was null and void. It was to get

865
rid of this anomaly that the present Bill was introduced.
Mr. Sergeant Jackson: Do the Ecclesiastical Courts hold a marriage to be good when no ceremony has been performed?
Mr. Perrin: They do.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, that marriages were held to be valid where no ceremony had been performed.
Mr. Shawwas of a different opinion so far as Ecclesiastical Courts went. All which he and his friends asked was, that in all these cases of clandestine marriages, the party celebrating them should incur the penalty of a misdemeanour.
Colonel Percevalsaid, there was no instance on record where a marriage was held valid in Ireland that had not been celebrated by a person in holy orders.
Bill went through the Committee,—and the House resumed.

COUNSEL FOR PRISONERS.
Mr. Ewart moved that the Prisoners' Counsel Bill be now committed.
The Attorney-Generalwas anxious, before the Speaker left the Chair, to make a few observations in justification of himself, against a censure which had been cast upon him out of doors, in consequence of his not having expressed his sentiments with regard to the principle and provisions of this Bill on its second reading. He did not then attend the House, for this plain reason—that he had, in a former Session of Parliament, expressed his entire approbation of the principle of the Bill. He now begged to say, that after long deliberation on the subject, his clear opinion was, that in cases of felony, of misdemeanours, and of high treason, the party accused in the Criminal Courts of this country ought to have the opportunity of making his defence by Counsel.
An hon. Memberopposed the Bill, on the ground that it would occasion considerable inconvenience in the due administration of justice. He conceived, that it was right prisoners should have Counsel in all cases in which speeches were made against them by Counsel for the prosecution. But in the English Criminal Courts, it was seldom the practice, in minor offences, for any speech to be made against the prisoner. He admitted, that it was sometimes done; but, speaking from his own experience, he confidently
866
asserted that it was a course very rarely adopted; and he was perfectly certain that in the present Constitution of our Courts of Justice, it would be impossible to carry this Bill into execution. He hoped, therefore, if the Bill did pass, that the hon. Gentleman who had introduced it would alter the title of it, and instead of calling it a "Bill to provide prisoners with Counsel," he would call it a "Bill to give Prisoners to Counsel."
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonhad never heard in the course of all the discussions that had taken place on this subject a single reason or a single argument, allied to common sense, that operated on his mind the conviction that prisoners ought not to have Counsel. It was a common phrase, indeed, that the Judge was Counsel for the prisoner. The fact, however, was not so; neither was it the business of a Judge to assume that character. It was his duty to see that nothing was done against the prisoner contrary to law; but so also was it his duty to see that justice was done towards the Crown. Besides, how could the Judge be Counsel for the prisoner, he being totally ignorant of the case that might be urged on his (the prisoner's) behalf. He trusted, therefore, that he should never hear that argument again. The Bill itself had his entire concurrence.
Mr. Blackburnesaid, that in the northern circuit he had always seen Counsel open the case for the prisoner, and if the practice was different in the midland circuit it should be altered and made the same. It ought not to be left to the prosecutor to say whether the prisoner was to be defended or not. He contended that little time of the Courts would be taken up if the Bill were permitted to pass. More time was lost now through the necessity of the Counsel putting questions to give the Jury a better idea of the circumstances of cases, and the present Bill, in nine cases out often, would be the cause of a saving of time. In the course of his practice, he always found that misdemeanours occupied less time than felonies. In burglaries, for instance, many minute circumstances might arise that it would be necessary for Counsel to explain to the Jury, and in which the prisoner required to have Counsel more than in cases of assault, in which punishment might not amount to more than a fine of five shillings. He would give his most cordial assent to the Bill.
Mr. Poulterthought, that much error prevailed on this question. He approved of the proposition that prisoners should address the Jury by Counsel in all cases where the prosecutor's Counsel should have previously addressed the Jury. But by the present practice prisoners had a great advantage; because it was not necessary for any prisoner to establish a case of innocence. The argument, therefore, for giving Counsel to prisoners, was a great fallacy. He would rather leave them with the benefit they now enjoyed in the mode of administering the Criminal laws of this country. Nobody could present a single authenticated case of innocence having been convicted for want of the aid of Counsel.
Mr. O'Connell: I can.
Mr. Poulter: What—authenticated?
Mr. O'Connell: I can.
Mr. Poulter: If the hon. and learned Member for Dublin meant to say, that in the lapse of ages such a case could be adduced he (Mr. Poulter) would admit that it was simply possible; but what did it arise from? Not from the want of a speech being made by Counsel, but from the infirmity of human knowledge. He begged, however, of all cases, to exclude from their consideration whatever might have occurred in Ireland.
Mr. Shawdesired to deprive the prisoner of no advantage, and thought that no consideration of time or convenience should weigh for a moment against the interests of justice; but his opinion was, that neither the advantage of the prisoner, nor the better Administration of justice, would be promoted by the Bill. The question was, not whether you would allow Counsel to the prisoner, for that the law did already—but whether Counsel should make speeches to the jury. They had, under the present system, ample means of addressing the Court on points of law, and suggesting all the important facts or views of a case upon which they might rely on cross-examination to the Jury. He had no objection to equalize the law in this respect, in the case of prosecution and defence—but if the Bill passed in its present form, it would impose a kind of necessity on an inferior class of the profession to address the Jury in every minor case of felony, and he did not consider that would be advantageous to the prisoner—but on the contrary, the Judge, in preventing the Jury from being
868
misled, would probably have to make observations which might operate to the prisoner's disadvantage.
Mr. Charles Bullerthought it very extraordinary that any Gentleman should challenge, as the hon. Member for Shaftes-bury had done, the existence of any recent convictions in which the innocent party had suffered. He (Mr. Buller) would not go back to ancient cases: he appealed to the common experience of every one. He only asked the House to recollect the statements made at the discussion of the question last Session:—namely, that one Sheriff (Mr. Wilde) had during his Shrievalty saved no less than five persons who had been unjustly convicted. In that great city the public was not satisfied with the kind of trial which went on at the Old Bailey. In every case long negotiations went on to prove the guilt of the Prisoner. He went only as far as the present year. A few days ago, they had seen the convict Williams condemned for a capital offence; but respited because of doubts which existed after trial as to his guilt. His hon. Friend had thrown away some arguments which he considered stale, and unworthy of being used. He thought the arguments stale and unworthy. He had advanced the old argument that the prisoner would "lose by having Counsel!" It seemed to him (Mr. Buller) that some Gentlemen greatly overrated the facility of trials. It was thought sometimes, that criminal cases might be disposed of by any Judge. But there was the most difficult case of intention, and he (Mr. Buller) believed that in spite of the facility with which some Gentlemen thought Criminal cases were decided, there was quite as much difficulty in them as in civil cases. Gentlemen had entirely disagreed in their experience of the old law. His experience differed from both the hon. Members who had spoken. He could state that Counsel for the prosecution made speeches only in the most complicated cases. But it was in those very cases that the speech told most against the prisoner, for while every little fact was put together and given to the Jury in a certain light by the prosecutor's Counsel he had no right to rebut those interferences and conclusions by a similar statement on the part of his advocate. He was convinced that the real objection entertained by Judges and Chairmen of Quarter Sessions against the removal

869
of this legal anomaly was their anticipation of a great waste of time by the speeches of the Counsel. It was, however, his opinion that by permitting those speeches much less time would be consumed, and such was the opinion of the hon. and learned Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Pollock). Counsel now endeavoured to address the Jury by the medium of cross-examination. He recollected one case in which a Counsel was for a quarter of an hour engaged in cross-examining a witness as to the point whether or not he had seen a dog run out of a house before the prisoner was said to have stolen a watch from the parlour. A friend said to him (Mr. Buller) in surprise, "Surely he is not going to charge the dog with the robbery." His (Mr. Buller's) impression was that the attempted defence was that the man had gone into the house to drive out the dog, and that by some accident the watch fell into his pocket. If the prisoner's Counsel had had to make a speech he would not possibly have set up so absurd a defence, and consequently have wasted so much time by cross-examination.
Mr. O'Connellappealed to the extensive practice he had for years had in criminal cases at the bar in Ireland, in corroboration of the sentiments which it was well known he entertained on this subject. How often had it been his lot to waste the time of a Court by attempting to make, by a long cross-examination of witnesses, indirectly a speech for the prisoner, so as to explain by this circumlocution that state of facts which would have been instantly explained had he possessed the power of uttering only four or five consecutive sentences as a defence for his client. He had witnessed numerous cases when for want of this equitable chance being afforded to a prisoner, as well as to his accuser, the unhappy man, though innocent, was found guilty. The prosecutor's Counsel's character was at stake, and he drew upon his own ingenuity. Why should not the permission to manage his case be granted also to the prisoner? By our law, a man arraigned for a misdemeanor, or a 5s. fine, would have the advantage of a speech from Counsel, whilst if a felony, when his life was to be the forfeit, the right was refused to the prisoner. The learned Recorder opposite had declared it was not for the interest of prisoners that their Counsel should be
870
allowed to address the Jury, for they might by chance employ unskilful barristers; but might not the prosecutor employ incompetent men, and was it likely that the prisoner and his friends would fail in their exertions to seek out the most talented and experienced advocates? At one time the admission of evidence for prisoners was objected against on the ground that a Jury never convicted but on demonstration of guilt, and that the balancing of evidence by the Judge would frequently be detrimental to the prisoner's case. That objection was to be put on one side, and was now as justly ridiculed as he hoped would speedily be the objections to giving prisoner's Counsel the proposed liberty.
Sir Eardley Wilmotsaid, he had no objection to Prisoner's Counsel addressing the Jury in capital cases, but in petty larceny trials he thought it would be most inexpedient.
Mr. Goulburnconsidered the grand objection to the proposition to be this. It would not be denied that in criminal cases the attainment of truth was the chief object, but if Counsel were allowed to argue every point, and to make their own statements of the case, the display of legal ingenuity rather than the development of truth would be the consequence. This was known to be the fact in cases of misdemeanor, in which Prisoner's Counsel frequently kept back their evidence, and trusted the acquittal of their client to the power of their eloquence. As to the right at present possessed by the Prosecutor's Counsel, he had seldom heard it controverted that it was the practice of the profession never to exceed a simple unvarnished statement of the facts they intended to prove.
Dr. Lushingtonsaid, that the hardship inflicted on prisoners by denying their Counsel a right of addressing the Jury had attracted considerable attention so long back as 1805. He remembered that on one occasion thirty-one prisoners were convicted upon certain evidence, and sentenced to execution. A few days after other prisoners were, upon the very same evidence, found not guilty—the consequence of which was, of course, a pardon to the thirty-one. At the Admiralty Sessions he laboured for three hours to make the Jury acquainted, through his mode of cross-examination, with certain indispensable points, which they were wholly unable to comprehend. His efforts

871
were vain, and the prisoners were acquitted only on a point of law.
Mr. Sinclairthought that prisoners and prosecutors should at least be put on an equal footing.
Mr. Sergeant Talfourdwas quite willing to allow, for the sake of argument, that there was nothing but the justice of the case to be argued in favor of the Bill. He believed it would be found that the most eminent Counsel were in the habit of strongly exciting prejudice and ill-feeling towards prisoners. He would allude to the case of a Mr. Thatcher, tried at Warwick, where the prisoner had not only to contend with all the prejudice which the prosecutor had raised against him, but the Counsel for the prosecution at the close of a most ingenious speech, declared that "the murderer was unmasked." Another case which he recollected was that of a person who was indicted for a rape upon a young lady, the daughter of a master of the ceremonies at one of our watering-places. Not only did Mr. Erskine, who was Counsel for the prosecution on that occasion invest the supposed victim with all the charms which his fascinating eloquence could throw around her; but he concluded by pointing to the prisoner at the bar, and asking the Jury "whether they could suppose it possible that the plaintiff could have gone, voluntarily, into the arms of the squalid wretch before them?" These were the terms in which the Counsel addressed the Court against prisoners, who had not an opportunity of saying a word in their defence. Such addresses as these would scarcely be endured at the Bar now; but he deprecated still more the want of warmth which at present prevailed; the Counsel for the prosecution laying the facts before the Court in such a mode, as to present a hideous picture of the prisoner's crime to the minds of the Jury, and then taking credit to himself for a mercy the most insidious and dangerous that could be conceived. In a case of circumstantial evidence, the prisoner was not only without adequate defence, but without any defence at all. The means of cross-examination seemed, to those not behind the scenes, more effective and powerful than the person who understood the machinery of these matters knew it to be. It might sometimes, produce such an effect as to confound a foolish witness, and deceive the best. It was, however, much more
872
difficult, also, than some Gentlemen imagined to elicit the truth by cross-examination, and how was the prisoner to be defended, when the evidence of the witnesses against him, could not be taken by that method, and his Counsel could make no statement to the Jury in cases where the infirmity of human nature was most to be deplored, and false judgement most to be apprehended? Without a statement to the Jury, how was it to be expected that during cross-examination the Jury or the Judge would be able to understand at what point the Counsel was aiming, or what was the real nature of his defence? With respect to some of the cases which had been alluded to, he could only say, that it had been his lot to defend a prisoner, whom he had seen convicted under circumstances in which public feeling had not been satisfied, nor justice satisfactorily administered, and with a deep sense of the infirmity of human tribunals—all which must have been remedied by the plain justice of allowing the prisoner the advantage of a Counsel.
An Hon. Memberwould undertake to say that if the proposition were agreed to, the business at the West Riding of Yorkshire Sessions would never be got through.
Mr. Jacksonwas satisfied that, in cases of circumstantial evidence, the Prisoner's Counsel ought to be allowed to address the Jury.
Mr. A. Sandfordmoved, that at the end of the first clause the following provision be added, "Provided, nevertheless, that in cases of felony, unless the Counsel against the prisoner shall have made a speech in the prosecution, the Counsel for the prisoner shall not address the Jury in defence of such prisoner."
The Attorney-Generalopposed the Amendment: it was very plausible but it would have the effect of placing the rights of the prisoner in the custody of the prosecutor. In many cases it might happen, whether intentionally or not, that the Counsel for the prosecution would also abstain from making a statement to the Jury, and thus deprive the prisoner of his right just when he most needed it, for instance when the Counsel for the prosecution could make out a strong prima facie case against the prisoner, he would not trouble himself with a speech but go at once to the evidence, and that was just the case in which the

873
prisoner was most in danger. It seemed to him, therefore, that it would be impossible to accede to the Amendment without totally destroying the very principle of the Bill.
The Committee divided on the Amendment; Ayes 26: Noes 30; Majority 4.
Clause agreed to.
On the next Clause being; read, to the effect that "in cases before Magistrates prisoners should not be allowed Counsel unless by the Magistrates' permission," amendment was moved by Mr. Buller, in these words:—"Except in cases where Magistrates have summary jurisdiction." The Committee divided when there appeared—
On the Amendment Ayes 22; Noes 22.
The Chairman gave a casting vote in favor of the amendment, which was agreed to.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Pease, J.

Baldwin, Dr.

Pryme, G.

Bish, T.

Rundle, J.

Blackburne, J.

Ruthven, E. S.

Blake, M. J.

Strickland, Sir G.

Chalmers, Patrick

Sullivan, R.

Crawford, S.

Wakley, T.

Ebrington, Lord

Walker, C.

Elphinstone, H.

Wallace, R.

Hume, Joseph

Warburton, H.

Musgrave, Sir R.

O'Brien, C.

TELLER.

Parker, John

Ewart, W.