COUNSEL FOR PRISONERS. (Hansard, 9 February 1836)

§ Mr. Ewart
moved for leave to bring in a Bill to enable all prisoners to make a full defence by Counsel.

§ Sir Eardley Wilmot
asked if the present Bill was intended to be the same as that one which was rejected by the House of Lords last year?

§ Mr. Ewart
said, that the present Bill he intended should be in every respect the same as the Bill which passed that House last year.

§ Sir Eardley Wilmot
believed the Bill of last year was carried by a majority of one in that House, But what had Lord Denman and Lord Brougham said of it? He did not mean to oppose the bringing in of the Bill, for there were many Clauses of it to which he should give his support; but he could not agree to the principle of allowing four speeches to Counsel in defence of a prisoner, and thus unnecessarily occupying so much of the time of the Court.

§ Mr. Ewart
denied that the Bill of last Session gave the privilege of four speeches to Counsel: the utmost that would be necessary in most cases for Counsel would be to make two speeches; and even that would depend upon the course pursued by the prosecuting Counsel. He denied, also, that the Bill was only carried by a majority of one. The fact was, that the Bill was carried by a large majority, and it was only one Clause of it to which the majority of one applied. As the Bill had passed that House in the last Session, and in the Session before, it surely could not be said that he had not now a locus standi. The hon. Baronet was greatly out of order in alluding to any Opinion given in another place by the two eminent persons he had named; but as that allusion had been made, he would take the opportunity of saving that he had yesterday-spoken on 226 the subject to one of those distinguished authorities, and that the opinion of that Judge was completely the contrary of what the hon. Baronet would seem to convey, and anything but opposed to the Bill. The other House of Parliament had never given any decision on the Bill, and how, therefore, could that House be quoted as an argument against it? It should be recollected, too, that the Bill had passed the House of Commons, notwithstanding the opposition of the Attorney-General.

Mr. O'Connell
supposed it was not the intention of the hon. Baronet to divide the House in opposition to the bringing in of the Bill. He did not think the time occupied by Counsel in defending a prisoner should be at all considered. The old principle, that "wretches hung that Jurymen might dine," he hoped was long since exploded.