All these errors have given way to the force of truth, and to the power of common sense and common humanity-the Attorney and Solicitor General, for the time being, always protesting against each alteration, and regularly and officially prophesying the utter destruction of the whole jurisprudence of Great Britain, There is no man now alive, perhaps, so utterly foolish, as to propose that prisoners should be prevented from producing evidence upon oath, and being heard by their counsel in cases of high treason; and yet it cost a struggle for seven sessions to get this measure through the two houses of Parliament. But mankind are much like the children they beget-they always make wry faces at what is to do them good; and it is necessary sometimes to hold the nose, and force the medicine down the throat. They enjoy the health and vigour consequent upon the medicine; but cuff the doctor, and sputter at his stuff!

oner to be innocent whom he thinks to be guilty? It the prisoner advances inconclusive or weak arguments, does not the judge say they are weak and inconclu sive, and does he not often sum up against his own client? How then is he counsel for the prisoner? If the counsel for the prisoner were to see a strong point, which the counsel for the prosecution had missed, would he supply the deficiency of his antagonist, and urge what had been neglected to be urged! But is it not the imperious duty of the judge to do so? How then can these two functionaries stand in the same relation to the prisoner? In fact the only meaning of the phrase is this, that the judge will not suffer any undue advantage to be taken of the ignorance and helplessness of the prisoner-that he will point out any evidence or circumstance in his favour-and see that equal justice is done to both parties. But in this sense he is as much the counsel of the prosecutor as A most absurd argument was advanced in the hon. of the prisoner. This is all the judge can do, or even ourable house, tha. the practice of employing counsel pretends to do; but he can have no previous commuwould be such an expense to the prisoner!—just as if nication with the prisoner-he can have no confiden. any thing was so expensive as being hanged! What tial communication in court with the prisoner before a fine topic for the ordinary! You are going' (says he sums up; he cannot fling the whole weight of his that exquisite divine) to be hanged to-morrow, it is understanding into the opposite scale against the true, but consider what a sum you have saved! Mr. counsel for the prosecution, and produce that collision Scarlett or Mr. Brougham might certainly have pre- of faculties, which, in all other cases but those of sented arguments to the jury, which would have in- felony, is supposed to be the happiest method of ar sured your acquittal; but do you forget that gentle- riving at truth. Baron Garrow, in his charge to the men of their eminence must be recompensed by large grand jury at Exeter, on the 16th of August, 1824, fees, and that, if your life had been saved, you would thus expressed his opinion of a judge being counse! actually have been out of pocket above 201? You for the prisoner. It has been said, and truly said, will now die with the consciousness of having obeyed that in criminal courts, judges were counsel for the the dictates of a wise economy; and with a grateful prisoners. So undoubtedly they were, as far as they reverence for the laws of your country, which prevents could to prevent undue prejudice, to guard against imyou from running into such unbounded expense-so let proper influence being excited against prisoners; but us now go to prayers.' it was impossible for them to go farther than this; for they could not suggest the course of defence pris. oners ought to pursue; for judges only saw the depo. sitions so short a time before the accused appeared at the bar of their country, that it was quite impossi ble for them to act fully in that capacity. The learn ed Baron might have added, that it would be more correct to call the judge counsel for the prosecution, for his only previous instructions were the depositions for the prosecution, from which, in the absence of counsel, he examined the evidence against the prisoner. On the prisoner's behalf he had no instructions at all.

It is ludicrous enough to recollect, when the employment of counsel is objected to on account of the expense to the prisoner, that the same merciful law, which, to save the prisoner's money has denied him counsel, and produced his conviction, seizes upon all his savings the moment he is convicted.

Can any thing, then, be more flagrantly and scanda lously unjust, than, in a long case of circumstantial evidence, to refuse to a prisoner the benefit of counsel? A foot-mark, a word, a sound, a tool dropped,all gave birth to the most ingenious inferences; and the counsel for the prosecution is so far from being blamable for entering into all these things, that they are all essential to the detection of guilt, and they are all links of a long and intricate chain: but if a close examination into, and a logical statement of, all these circumstances be necessary for the establishment of guilt, is not the same closeness of reasoning and the same logical statement necessary for the establishment of innocence? If justice cannot be done to soci ety without the intervention of a practised and ingeni ous mind, who may connect all these links together, and make them clear to the apprehension of a jury,can justice be done to the prisoner, unless similar practice and similar ingenuity are employed to detect the flaws of the chain, and to point out the disconnec tion of the circumstances?

Of all false and foolish dicta, the most trite and the most absurd is that which asserts that the judge is counsel for the prisoner. We do not hesitate to say that this is merely an unmeaning phrase, invented to defend a pernicious abuse. The judge cannot be counsel for the prisoner, ought not to be counsel for the prisoner, never is counsel for the prisoner. To force an ignorant man into a court of justice, and to tell him that the judge is his counsel, appears to us quite as foolish as to set a hungry man down to his meals, and to tell him that the table was his dinner. In the first place, a counsel should always have private and previous communication with the prisoner, which the judge, of course, cannot have. The prisoner reveals to his counsel how far he is guilty, or he is not; states to him all the circumstance of his case-and might often enable his advocate, if his advocate were allow ed to speak, to explain a long string of circumstantial evidence, in a manner favourable to the innocence of his client. Of all these advantages, the judge, if he had every disposition to befriend the prisoner, is of course deprived. Something occurs to a prisoner in the course of the cause; he suggests it in a whisper to his counsel, doubtful if it is a wise point to urge or not. His counsel thinks it of importance, and would urge it, if his mouth were not shut. Can a prisoner have this secret communication with a judge, and take his advice, whether or not he, the judge, shall Is there any one gentleman in the House of Commention it to the jury? The counsel has (after all mons, who, in yielding his vote to this paltry and the evidence has been given) a bad opinion of his cli- perilous fallacy of the judge being counsel for the ent's case; but he suppresses that opinion; and it is prisoner, does not feel, that, were he himself a crimihis duty to do so. He is not to decide; that is the nal, he would prefer almost any counsel at the bar,province of the jury: and, in spite of his own opinion, to the tender mercies of the judge? How strange his client may be innocent. He is brought there (or that any man who could make his election would would be brought there if the privilege of speech were eagerly and diligently surrender this exquisite privi. allowed) for the express purpose of saying all that lege, and addict himself to the perilous practice of could be said on one side of the question. He is a giving fees to counsel? Nor let us forget, in consid. weight in one scale, and some one else holds the ba-ering judges as counsel for the prisoner, that there lance. This is the way in which truth is elicited in have been such men as Chief Justice Jeffries, Mr. civil, and would be in criminal cases. But does the Justice Page, and Mr. Justice Alybone, and that,-in Judge ever assume the appearance of believing a pris- bad times, such men may reappear. If you do not

allow me counsel,my lords (says Lord Lovat), it is im- | common sense and common feeling revolt:-for it is possible for me to make any defence, by reason of my full of brutal cruelty, and of base inattention of those infirmity. I do not see, I do not hear. I come up to the who make laws, to the happiness of those for whom bar at the hazard of my life. I have fainted several laws were made. We wonder that any juryman can times, I have been up so early, ever since four o'clock convict under such a shocking violation of all natural this morning. I therefore ask for assistance; and if you justice. The iron age of Clovis and Clottaire can prodo not allow me counsel, or such aid as is necessary, duce no more atrocious violation of every good feelit will be impossible for me to make any defence at all.' ing, and every good principle. Can a sick man find Though Lord Lovat's guilt was evident, yet the man- strength and nerves to speak before a large assembly? agers of the impeachment felt so strongly the injustice-can an ignorant_man find words?-can a low man which was done, that, by the hands of Sir W. Young, find confidence? Is not he afraid of becoming an ob the chief manager, a bill was brought into parliament, ject of ridicule ?-can he believe that his expressions to allow counsel to persons impeached by that house, will be understood? How often have we seen a poor which was not previously the case; so that the evil is wretch, struggling against the agonies of his spirit, already done away with, in a great measure, to per- and the rudeness of his conceptions, and his awe of sons of rank: it so happens in legislation, when a better dressed men and better taught men, and the gentleman suffers, public attention is awakened to the shame which the accusation has brought upon his evil of laws. Every man who makes laws says, head, and the sight of his parents and children gazing This may be my case:' but it requires the repeated at him in the court, for the last time, perhaps, and efforts of humane men, or, as Mr. North calls them, after a long absence? The mariner sinking in the dilettanti philosophers, to awaken the attention of wave does not want a helping hand more than does lawmakers to evils from which they are themselves this poor wretch. But help is denied to all! Age exempt. We do not say this to make the leaders of cannot have it, nor ignorance, nor the modesty of womankind unpopular, but to rouse their earnest atten- men! One hard uncharitable rule silences the defention in cases where the poor only are concerned, and ders of the wretched, in the worst of human evils; where neither good nor evil can happen to themselves. and at the bitterest of human moments, mercy is A great stress is laid upon the moderation of the blotted out from the ways of men! opening counsel; that is, he does not conjure the far- Suppose a crime to have been committed under the mers in the jury-box, by the love which they bear to influence of insanity; is the insane man, now conva their children-he does not declaim upon blood guilti-lescent, to plead his own insanity?-to offer arguments ness he does not describe the death of Abel by Cain, to show that he must have been mad?-and, by the the first murderer-he does not describe scattered glimmerings of his returning reason, to prove that, at brains, ghastly wounds, pale features, and hair clotted a former period, that same reason was utterly extinct? with gore he does not do a thousand things, which These are the cruel situations into which judges and are not in English taste, and which it would be very courts of justice are thrown by the present state of the foolish and very vulgar to do. We really allow all law. this. But yet, if it be a cause of importance, it is essentially necessary to our counsellor's reputation that his man should be hung! And accordingly, with a very calm voice, and composed manner, and with many expressions of candour, he sets himself to comment astutely upon the circumstances. Distant events are immediately connected; meaning is given to insignificant facts; new motives are ascribed to innocent actions; farmer gives way after farmer in the jurybox; and a rope of eloquence is woven round the prisoner's neck! Every one is delighted with the talents of the advocate; and because there has been no noise, no violent action, and no consequent perspiration, he is praised for his candour and forbearance, and the len ity of our laws is the theme of universal approbation. In the mean time, the speech-maker and the prisoner

know better.

There is a judge now upon the bench, who never took away the life of a fellow creature without shutting himself up alone and giving the most profound attention to every circumstance of the case! and this solemn act he always premises with his own beauti. ful prayer to God, that he will enlighten him with his Divine Spirit in the exercise of this terrible privilege! Now would it not be an immense satisfaction to this feeling and honourable magistrate, to be sure that every witness on the side of the prisoner had been heard, and that every argument which could be urged in his favour had been brought forward, by a man whose duty it was to see only on one side of the question, and whose interest and reputation was thoroughly em barked in this partial exertion? If a judge fails to get at the truth, after these instruments of investigation are used, his failure must be attributed to the limited We should be glad to know of any nation in the powers of man-not to the want of good inclination, or world, taxed by by kings, or even imagined by poets wise institutions. We are surprised that such a mea(except the English), who have refused to prisoners sure does not come into Parliament, with the strong the benefit of counsel. Why is the voice of humani- recommendation of the judges. It is surely better to ty heard every where else, and disregarded here? In be a day longer on the circuit, than to murder rapidly Scotland, the accused have not only counsel to speak for them, but a copy of the indictment, and a list of the witnesses. In France, in the Netherlands, in the whole of Europe, counsel are allotted as a matter of course. Every where else but here, accusation is considered as unfavourable to the exercise of human facul ties. It is admitted to be that crisis in which, above all others, an unhappy man wants the aid of cloquence, wisdom, and coolness. In France the Napoleon code has provided not only that counsel should be allowed to the prisoner, but that, as with us in Scotland, his counsel should have the last word.

in ermine.

It is argued, that, among the various pleas for mercy that are offered, no prisoner has ever urged to the secretary of state the disadvantage of having no counsel to plead for him; but a prisoner who dislikes to undergo his sentence, naturally addresses to those who can reverse it such arguments only as will produce, in the opinion of the referee, a pleasing effect. He does not therefore find fault with the established system of jurisprudence, but brings forward facts and arguments to prove his own innocence. Besides, how few peo ple there are who can elevate themselves from the ac It is a most affecting moment in a court of justice, quiescence in what is, to the consideration of what when the evidence has all been heard, and the judge ought to be; and if they could do so, the way to get asks the prisoner what he has to say in his defence. rid of a punishment is not (as we have just observed) The prisoner, who has (by great exertions, perhaps of to say, you have no right to punish me in this man his friends,) saved up money enough to procure coun-ner,' but to say, 'I am innocent of the offence.' The sel, says to the judge, that he leaves his defence to his counsel.' We have often blushed for English humanity to hear the reply. Your counsel cannot speak for you, you must speak for yourself; and this is the reply given to a poor girl of eighteen-to a foreigner -to a deaf man-to a stammerer-to the sick-to the feeble-to the old-to the most abject and ignorant of human beings! It is a reply, we must say, at which

fraudulent baker at Constantinople, who is about to be baked to death in his own oven, does not complain of the severity of baking bakers, but promises to use more flour and less fraud.

Whence comes it (we should like to ask Sir John Singleton Copley, who seems to dread so much the conflicts of talent in criminal cases) that a method of getting at truth which is found so serviceable in civil

cases should be so much objected to in criminal ca- | must fling every thing into confusion. The court for ses? Would you have all this wrangling and bicker- misdemeanours must be a scene of riot and perpicxi, ing, it is asked, and contentious eloquence, when the ty; and the detection and punishment of crime must life of a man is concerned? Why not, as well as be utterly impossible: and yet in the very teeth of when his property is concerned? It is either a good these objections, such courts of justice are just as or means of doing justice, or it is not, that two under- derly in one set of offences as the other; and the con standings should be put in opposition to each other, viction of a guilty person just as certain and as easy. and that a third should decide between them. Does The prosecutor (if this system were altered) would this open every view which can bear upon the ques- have the choice of counsel: so he has now-with this tion? Does it in the most effectual manner watch the difference, that, at present, his counsel cannot be an judge, detect perjury, and sift evidence? If not, why swered nor opposed. It would be better in all cases, is it suffered to disgrace our civil institutions? If it if two men of exactly equal talent could be opposed effect all these objects, why is it not incorporated into to each other; but as this is impossible, the system our criminal law? Of what importance is a little dis- must be taken with this inconvenience; but there can gust at professional tricks, if the solid advantage gain. be no inequality between counsel so great as that be ed is a nearer approximation to truth? Can any thing tween any counsel and the prisoner pleading for himbe more preposterous than this preference of taste to self. It has been lately my lot,' says Mr. Denman, justice, and of solemnity to truth? What an eulogium to try two prisoners who were deaf and dumb, and of a trial to say, I am by no means satisfied that the who could only be made to understand what was jury were right in finding the prisoner guilty; but eve- passing by the signs of their friends. The cases were ry thing was carried on with the utmost decorum.clear and simple; but if they had been circumstantial The verdict was wrong; but there was the most per- cases, in what a situation would the judge and jury be fect propriety and order in the proceedings. The man placed, when the prisoner could have no counsel to will be unfairly hanged; but all was genteel? If so- plead for him.-Debates of the House of Commons, lemnity is what is principally wanted in a court of April, 25, 1826. justice, we had better study the manners of the old Spanish Inquisition; but if battles with the judge, and battles among the counsel, are the best method, as they certainly are, of getting at the truth, better tolerate this philosophical Billingsgate, than persevere, because the life of a man is at stake, in solemn and polished injustice.

Why would it not be just as wise and equitable to leave the defendant without counsel in civil cases, and to tell him that the judge was his counsel? And if the reply is to produce such injurious effects as are anticipated upon the minds of the jury in criminal cases, why not in civil cases also? In twenty-eight cases out of thirty, the verdict in civil cases is correct: in the two remaining cases, the error may proceed from other causes than the right of reply; and yet the right of reply has existed in all. In a vast majority of cases, the verdict is for the plaintiff, not because there is a right of reply, but because he who has it in his power to decide whether he will go to law or not, and resolves to expose himself to the expense and trouble of a lawsuit, has probably a good foundation for his claim. Nobody, of course, can intend to say that the majority of verdicts in favour of plaintiffs are against justice, and merely attributable to the advantage of a last speech. If this were the case, the sooner advocates are turned out of court the better-and then the improvement of both civil and criminal law would be an abolition of all speeches; for those who dread the effect of the last word upon the fate of the prisoner, must remember that there is at present always a last speech against the prisoner; for, as the counsel for the prosecution cannot be replied to, his is the last speech.

The folly of being counsel for yourself is so notorious in civil cases, that it has grown into a proverb. But the cruelty of the law compels a man, in criminal cases, to be guilty of a much greater act of folly, and to trust his life to an advocate, who, by the common sense of mankind, is pronounced to be inadequate to defend the possession o an acre of land. In all cases it must be supposed, that reasonably convenient instruments are selected to effect the purpose in view. A judge may be commonly presumed to understand his profession, and a jury to have a fair allowance of common sense; but the objectors to the improvement we recommend appear to make no such suppositions. Counsel are always to make flashy addresses to the passions. Juries are to be so much struck with them, that they are always to acquit or to condemn, contrary to justice; and judges are always to be so biassed, that they are to fling themselves rashly into the opposite scale against the prisoner. Many cases of misdemeanour consign a man to infamy, and cast a blot upon his posterity. Judges and juries must feel these cases as strongly as any cases of felony; and yet, in spite of this, and in spite of the free permission of counsel to speak, they preserve their judgment, and command their feelings, surprisingly. Generally speaking, we believe none of these evils would take place. Trumpery declamation would be considered as discre ditable to the counsel, and would be disregarded by the jury. The judge and jury (as in civil cases) would gain the habit of looking to the facts, selecting the arguments, and coming to reasonable conclusions. It is so in all other countries, and it would be so in this. But the vigilance of the judge is to relax, if there is counsel for the prisoner. Is, then, the relaxed vigiThere is certainly this difference between a civil lance of the judges complained of, in high treason, and a criminal case-that in one a new trial can in misdemeanour, or in civil cases? This appears to be granted, in the other not. But you must first make us really to shut up the debate, and to preclude reply. up your mind whether this system of contentious in- Why is the practice so good in all other cases, and so vestigation by opposite advocates is or is not the best pernicious in felony alone? This question has never method of getting at truth: if it be, the more irreme- received even the shadow of an answer. There is no diable the decision. the more powerful and perfect one objection against the allowance of counsel to pri should be the means of deciding; and then it would soners in felony, which does not apply to them in all be a less oppression if the civil defendent were de-cases. If the vigilance of judges depend upon this inprived of counsel than the criminal prisoner. When justice to the prisoner, then, the greater injustice to an error has been committed, the advantage is greater the prisoner, the more vigilance; and so the true meto the latter of these persons than to the former; the criminal is not tried again, but pardoned; while the civil defendant must run the chance of another jury. If the effect of reply, and the contention, of counsel have all these baneful consequences in felony, why not also in misdemeanour and high treason? Halt the cases at sessions are cases of misdemeanour, where counsel are employed and half-informed justices preside instead of learned judges. There are no complaints of the unfairness of verdicts, though there are every now and then of the severity of punishments. Now, if the reasoning of Mr. Lamb's opponents were true, the disturbing force of the prisoner's counsel

thod of perfecting the Bench would be, to deny the prisoner the power of calling witnesses, and to increase, as much as possible, the disparity between the accuser and the accused. We hope men are selected for the Judges of Israel, whose vigilance depends upon better and higher principles.

But the most singular caprice of the law is, that counsel are permitted in very high crimes, and in very small crimes, and denied in crimes of a sort of medium description. In high treason, where you mean to murder Lord Liverpool, and to levy war against the people, and to blow up the two houses of Parliament all the lawyers of Westminster Hall may talk them.

English prisoners, we believe many are found guilty who are innocent, and would not have been found guilty, if an able and intelligent man had watched over their interest, and represented their case. If this happen only to two or three every year, it is quite a sufficient reason why the law should be altered. That such cases exist we firmly believe; and this is the practical evil-perceptible to men of sense and reflec tion; but not likely to become the subject of general petition. To ask why there are not petitions-why the evil is not more noticed, is mere parliamentary froth and ministerial juggling. Gentlemen are rarely hung. If they were so, there would be petitions without end for counsel. The creatures exposed to the cruelties and injustice of the law are dumb creatures, who feel the evil without being able to express their feelings. Besides, the question is not, whether the evil is found out, but whether the evil exist. Whoever thinks it is an evil should vote against it, whether the sufferer from the injustice discover it to be an injustice, or whether he suffer in ignorant silence. When the bill was enacted, which allowed counsel for treason, there was not a petition from one end of England to the other. Can there be a more shocking answer from the ministerial bench, than to say, For real evil we care nothing-only for detected evil? We will set about curing any wrong which affects our popularity and power: but as to any other evil, we wait till the people find it out; and, in the mean time, commit such evils to the care of Mr. George Lamb, and of Sir James Mackintosh. We are sure so good a man as Mr. Peel can never feel in this man. ner.

selves dry, and the jury deaf. Lord Eldon, when at | the bar, has been heard for nine hours on such subjects. If, instead of producing the destruction of five thousand people, you are indicted for the murder of one person, here human faculties, from the diminution of guilt, are supposed to be so clear and unclouded, that the prisoner is quite adequate to make his own defence, and no cousel are allowed. Take it, then, upon that principle; and let the rule, and the reason of it, pass as sufficient. But if, instead of murdering the man, you have only libelled him, then, for some reason or another, though utterly unknown to us, the original faculties in accused persons is respected, and counsel are allowed. Was ever such nonsense defended by public men in grave assemblies? The prosecutor, too, (as Mr. Horace Twiss justly observes) can either allow or disallow counsel, by selecting his form of prosecution; as where a mob had assembled to repeal, by riot and force, some unpopular statute, and certain persons had continued in that assembly for more than an hour after proclamation to disperse.That might be treated as levying war against the king, and then the prisoner would be entitled to receive (as Lord George Gordon did receive) the benefit of counsel. It might also be treated as a seditious riot; then it would be a misdemeanor, and counsel would still be allowed. But if government had a mind to destroy the prisoner effectually, they have only to abstain from the charge of treason, and to introduce into the indictment the aggravation, that the prisoner had continued with the mob for an hour after proclamation to disperse; this is a felony, the prisoner's life is in jeopardy, and counsel are effectually excluded. It produces, in many other cases disconnected with treason, Howard devoted himself to his country. It was a the most scandalous injustice. A receiver of stolen noble example. Let two gentlemen on the ministerial goods, who employs a young girl to rob her master, side of the house (we only ask for two) commit some may be tried for the misdemeanour; the young girl, crimes, which will render their execution a matter of taken afterwards, would be tried for the felony. The painful necessity. Let them feel. and report to the receiver would be punishable only with fine, imprison-house, all the injustice and inconvenience of having ment, or whipping, and he could have counsel to defend him. The girl indicted for felony, and liable to death, would enjoy no such advantage.

In the comparison between felony and treason, there are certainly some arguments why counsel should be allowed in felony rather than in treason. Persons accused of treason are generally persons of education and rank, accustomed to assemblies, and to public speaking, while men accused of felony are commonly of the lowest of the people. If it be true, that judges, in cases of high reason, are more liable to be influenced by the crown, and to lean against the prisoner, this cannot apply to cases of misdemeanour, or to the defendants in civil cases; but if it be necessary that judges should be watched in political cases, how often are cases of felony connected with political disaffection? Every judge, too, has his idiosyncrasies, which require to be watched. Some hate Dissenters, some mobs; some have one weakness, some another; and the ultimate truth is, that no court of justice is safe, unless there is some one present whose occupation and interest it is to watch the safety of the prisoner. Till then, no man of right feeling can be easy at the administration of justice, and the punishment of death. Two men are accused of one offence; the one dexterous, bold, subtle, gifted with speech, and remarkable for presence of mind; the other timid, hesitating, and confused; is there any reason why the chances of these two men for acquittal should be, as they are, so very different? Inequalities there will be in the means of defence under the best system, but there is no occasion the law should make these greater than they are left to chance and nature.

neither a copy of the indictment, nor a list of witness. es, nor counsel to defend them. We will venture to say, that the evidence of two such persons would do more for the improvement of the criminal law, than all the orations of Mr. Lamb, or the lucubrations of Beccaria. Such evidence would save time, and bring the question to an issue. It is a great duty, and ought to be fulfilled; and, in ancient Rome, would have been fulfilled.

The opponents always forget that Mr. Lamb's plan is not to compel prisoners to have counsel, but to allow them to have counsel if they choose to do so. Depend upon it, as Dr. Johnson says, when a man is going to be hanged, his faculties are wonderfully concentrated. If it be really true, as the defenders of Mumpsimus observe, that the judge is the best counsel for the prisoner, the prisoner will soon learn to employ him, especially as his lordship works without fees. All that we want is an option given to the prisoner, that a man, left to adopt his own means of defence in every trifling civil right, may have the same power of selecting his own auxiliaries for higher interests.

But nothing can be more unjust than to speak of judges, as if they were of one standard, and one heart and head pattern. The great majority of judges, we have no doubt, are upright and pure; bnt some have been selected for flexible politics-some are passionate-some are in a hurry-some are violent churchmen-some resemble ancient females-some have the gout-some are eighty years old-some are blind, deaf, and have lost the power of smelling. All one to the unhappy prisoner-he has no choice.

It is impossible to put so gross an insult upon judg. But (it is asked) what practical injustice is done-es, jurymen, grand-jusymen, or any person connected what practical evil is there in the present system? with the administration of justice, as to suppose that The great object of all law is, that the guilty should the longer time to be taken up by speeches of counsel be punished, and the innocent should be acquitted. A constitutes the grand bar to the proposed alteration, very great majority of prisoners, we admit, are guilty, If three hours would acquit a man, and he is hanged and so clearly guilty, that we believe they would be because he is only allowed two hours for his defence, found guilty under any system: but among the number the poor man is as much murdered as if his throat had of those who are tried, some are innocent, and the been cut before he came into court. If twelve judges chance of establishing their innocence is very much cannot do the most perfect justice, other twelve must diminished by the privation of counsel. In the course be appointed. Strange administration of criminal law, of twenty or thirty years, among the whole mass of to adhere obstinately to an inadequate number of

judges, and to refuse any improvement which is in- | facts, and prefer his arguments. Then criminal jus compatible with this arbitrary and capricious enact- tice may march on boldly. The judge has no stain of ment. Neither is it quite certain that the proposed blood on his ermine; and the phrases which English alteration would create a greater demand upon the people are so fond of lavishing upon the humanity of time of the court. At present the counsel makes a their laws, will have a real foundation. At present defence by long cross-examinations and examinations this part of the law is a mere relic of the barbarous inin chief of the witnesses, and the judge allows a great- justice by which accusation in the early part of our juer latitude than he would do, if the counsel of the pri-risprudence was always confounded with guilt. The soner were permitted to speak. The counsel by these greater part of these abuses have been brushed away, oblique methods, and by stating false points of law as this cannot fail soon to be. In the mean time it is for the express purpose of introducing facts, endeavours to obviate the injustice of the law, and takes up more time by this oblique, than he would do by a dírect defence. But the best answer to this objection of time (which, if true, is no objection at all) is, that as many misdemeanors as felonies are tried in a given time, though counsel are allowed in the former, and not in the latter case.

defended (as every other abuse has been defended) by men who think it their duty to defend every thing which is, and to dread every thing which is not. We are told that the judge does what he does not do, and ought not to do. The most pernicious effects are an ticipated in trials of felony, from that which is found to produce the most perfect justice in civil causes, and in cases of treason and misdemeanor: we are called

other country, and are required by lawyers to consider that custom as humane, which every one who is not a lawyer pronounces to be most cruel and unjust-and which has not been brought forward to general notice, only because its bad effects are confined to the last and lowest of mankind.

One excuse for the absence of counsel is that the evi-upon to continue a practice without example in any dence upon which the prisoner is convicted is always so clear, that the counsel cannot gainsay it. This is mere absurdity. There is not, and cannot be such a rule. Many a man has been hung upon a string of circumstantial evidence, which not only very ingenious men, but very candid and judicious men, might criticise and call in question. If no one were found guilty but upon such evidence as would not admit of a doubt, half the crimes in the world would be unpunished. This dictum, by which the present practice has often been defended, was adopted by Lord Chancellor Not-1. tingham. To the lot of this chancellor, however, it fell to pass sentence of death upon Lord Stafford, whom (as Mr. Denman justly observes) no court of justice, not even the house of lords (constituted as it was in those days) could have put to death, it he had had counsel to defend him.

CATHOLICS. (EDINBURGH REVIEW, 1827.)

4 Plain Statement in support of the Political Claims of th Roman Catholics; in a Letter to the Rev. Sir George Lea Bart. By Lord Nugent, Member of Parliament for Ayles bury. London, Hookham. 1826.

3. A Letter to Viscount Milton, M. P. By One of his Con stituents. London, Ridgway. 1827.

3. Charge by the Archbishop of Cashel. Dublin, Milliken. To improve the criminal law of England, and to Ir a poor man were to accept a guinea upon the make it really deserving of the incessant eulogium condition that he spoke all the evil he could of anothe which is lavished upon it, we would assimilate tri- whom he believed to be innocent, and whose priva als for felony to trials for high treason. The pri- tions he knew he should increase by his false testi soner should not only have counsel, but a copy mony, would not the person so hired be one of th of the indictment and a list of the witnesses, many worst and basest of human beings? And would no days antecedent to the trial. It is in the highest de- his guilt be aggravated, if, up to the moment of re gree unjust that I should not see and study the de-ceiving his aceldama, he had spoken in terms of hig scription of the crime with which I am charged, if the praise of the person whom he subsequently accused most scrupulous exactness be required in that instru- Would not the latter feature of the case prove him t ment which charges me with crime. If the place where, be as much without shame as the former evinced hir the time when, and the manner how, and the persons by to be without principle? Would the guilt be less, if th whom, must all be specified with the most perfect ac-person so hired were a man of education? Would it b curacy, if any deviation from this accuracy is fatal, the less, if he were above want? Would it be less, if th prisoner, or his legal advisers, should have a full oppor-profession and occupation of his life were to decid tunity of judging whether the scruples of the law have been attended to in the formation of the indictment; and they ought not to be confined to the hasty and imperfect consideration which can be given to an indictment exhibited for the first time in court. Neither is it possible for the prisoner to repel accusation till he knows who is to be brought against him. He may see suddenly, stuck up in the witness's box, a man who has been writing him letters, to extort money from the threat of evidence he could produce. The character of such a witness would be destroyed in a moment, if the letters were produced; and the letters would have been produced, of course, if the prisoner had imagined such a person would have been brought forward by the prosecutor. It is utterly impossible for a prisoner to know in what way he may be assailed, and against what species of attack he is to guard. Conversations may be brought against him which he has forgotten, and to which he could (upon notice) have given another colour and complexion. Actions are made to bear upon his case, which (if he had known they would have been referred to) might have been explained in the most satisfactory manner. All these modes of attack are pointed out by the list of witnesses transmitted to the prisoner, and he has time to prepare his answer, as it is perfectly just he should have. This is justice, when a prisoner has ample means of compelling the attendance of his witnesses; when his written accusation is put into his hand, and he has time to study it-when he knows in what manner his guilt is to be proved, and when he has a man of practised understanding to state his

men's rights, or to teach them morals and religion Would it be less by the splendour of the bribe? Does bribe of 30007. leave a man innocent, whom a bribe c 301. would cover with infamy? You are of a mature pe riod of life, when the opinions of an honest man ough to be, and are fixed. On Monday you were a barriste or a country clergyman, a serious and temperate friend to religious liberty and Catholic emancipation. In a few weeks from this time you are a bishop, or a dean, of a judge-publishing and speaking charges and ser mons against the poor Catholics, and explaining away this sale of your soul by every species of falsehood, shabbiness, and equivocation. You may carry a bit of ermine on your shoulder, or hide the lower moiety of the body in a silken petticoat-and men may call you Mr. Dean, or My Lord; but you have sold your honour and your conscience for money; and, though better paid, you are as base as the witness who stands at the door of the judgment-hall, to swear whatever the suborner will put into his mouth, and to receive whatever he will put in his pocket.†

When soldiers exercise, there stands a goodly port. ly person out of the ranks, upon whom all eyes are directed, and whose signs and motions, in the per

*All this nonsense is now put an end to. Counsel is allowed to the prisoner, and they are permitted to speak in his defence.

It is very far from our intention to say that all who were for the Catholics, and are now against them, have made this change from base motives; it is equally far from our intention not to say that many men of both professions have subjected themselves to this shocking imputation.