reverend Profite having thought proper to letter, directing the two officers who had introduce pain to your Lordships the so neted to be arrested. He then commeme doctrine, I thought it my duty tomunicated with the Duke of York, at that reply. This, then, is my answer to the charges of the noble Duke, who accuses me of petting up a debate on the presentation of a petition, and of attempting to pull down the Universities The Petitions to lie on the Table. time Commander-in-chief of the army, and he inquired of his Royal Highness whether the proper course to pursue would be to strike the names of those officers out of the Army List, for a deliberate Act of Insubordination, if not of mutiny, or to direet that they should be tried by a CourtCAgror CAPTAIN A remsor-MITTARY martial. His Royal Highness, who enDistrise | The Earl of Winchelsea rose, tirely approved of the steps he (the Duke pumant to the notice he had given, to pre of Wellington) had taken, recommended Bent two petitions complaining of the prac him to advise his Majesty at once to disthee of requiring Protestant soldiers on miss the officers from the service. His fonion service to take a part in religious conduct in this affair had also been aptoomompe in Catholic countries, and proved of by another Superior-Officer, the pysung also for some compensation to two Commander in-chief in the Mediterranean, others who were dismissed the service by : General Sir Thomas Maitland. That sentence of Comts martial, for conscien- officer arrived at Malta on the 5th of Notrously refusing to take a part in such¦vember, 1828, and without any previous con momes, and sending a remonstrance to that commanding officer against being ended on to take a part in such ceremonies. On the subject of the first part of the prayor, he world say, that Catboites baying been exoneratol fivom attendance on Prò Textant word in. he thoug? i that the sum princide euch to be extendol to Protestསྩ॰ ༈ ། སཱ ད), } ;༑ གསྶ He must n'e xyt in the outs set, that no one felt more thyy he để thể Pecessity of stret moliina ohadonde, and borne adeo admit that the House of Padumont wVA not the fit piggs to re Null be this communication with him, or his Royal Highness the Duke of York, published an Order of the Day expressing the opinion he entertained of the behaviour of the two officers in question, and directing, for the purpose of preventing the recurrence of a simular Act of disobedience, that they shorld, unui forcher notio. be relieved from al, dogy. Op recerving & copy of this order, be sent & letter te. Sir. T. Maitland, desizing him to order the officers to be triot by Conzt-martia,, and m, the verdict of the Court-martin, the other were cashiered. the mobic bur, hac sad, that one of these athoops, was dismissed his Majesty's service hocure, he would not ring à hels. That THE DA, & COPreci sccount of the matter; Èx, th, change preferred against um helore the Caum mat was not that he has des é eine worshi, bu, on: winch. treaty, that respect should be paid to the abolished, pensions were to be instituted inhabitants. To the prayer for compensa- for them. It was to be specially observed, tion, with which the petition concluded, he that out of twenty-two pensions which thought their Lordships ought not to pay might have been granted, only eleven were; any attention. These officers belonged to and really it was not too much to expect the artillery, and officers in that branch of that the Crown should be invested with the service never purchased their Commis- the power of making adequate recompense sions. Therefore, if on leaving the service, to its servants, the more particularly as they were to receive remuneration, they now the expense and difficulty of getting would receive money for the loss of a Com- into Parliament had so much increased, and mission for which they never paid any when the emoluments of the bar and other money. In fact, to grant remuneration to professions stood so high, that it would be these officers would be to hold out a pre- no easy matter to secure an efficient supmium for disobedience to orders. port in the public service if suitable rewards were not given. It was also to be borne in mind that the increased and increasing power of the House of Commons had rendered a measure of that nature necessaryit was fitting, that the power of the Crown should be sufficient for the purpose, and that the Crown alone should possess the right of rewarding its servants. He was the more led to make this observation from what had occurred in another place, where the reward to be given to the services of a gallant Officer was taken into consideration against the wish of the Ministers of the Crown. There, were, however, some clauses to which he should move Amendments when they went into Committee. Earl Grey, knowing who was at the head of the Ordnance Department, and who was at the head of the army, at the time the transaction brought under the notice of the House took place, could feel no doubt that full justice had been administered in the case; and this was the conclusion at which he had arrived after a full investigation of the facts. The of fence of which these officers were found guilty was a breach of military discipline of the most serious importance. These officers were not called upon to participate in the religious ceremonies of the Roman Catholics at Malta, in such a way as implied any belief on their part in the doctrines of the Church of Rome. He was of opinion that the sentence passed on these officers was a just one. The Petition to lie on the Table. PENSIONS CIVIL OFFICES.] On the Question that the House do resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House on the Civil Office (Pensions) Bill, Earl Grey said, that when the Bill was read a second time by their Lordships, no statement was entered into of its principal provisions; he should therefore trouble them with a few words before they proceeded with the Order of the Day. The noble Earl stated an outline of the Bill. He was sure the House when they looked at the previous power of the Crown, limited as it was when they looked at the great services which the officers he had mentioned usually rendered to the State-would agree with him in thinking that the Bill did not invest the Crown with undue power. If anything, he should say that the Bill did not enable the Crown sufficiently to reward those functionaries. The Duke of Wellington referred to the preamble of the Act of 1817, for the purpose of showing, that the arrangements then made were in the nature of a bargain, by which, when the sinecure offices were The Lord Chancellor said, that he must have closed his eyes to all that had been passing around him for several years, and particularly during the four last, if he were to say that he entertained the same view of the power of the Crown as formerly. However unpalatable the statement might be, he certainly must declare, that the power of the Crown was now so fenced round, and its patronage so cut down, as to be no longer objects of apprehension. This was the result of various economical reforms, of some of which, when a Member of the other House, he had been a promoter. We were not now living in such times as those in which Mr. Dunning submitted his resolution, that the power of the Crown had increased, was increasing, and ought to be diminished, or as in 1822 (he thought it was, but at all events it was in the last year of Lord Londonderry's life), when he (the Lord Chancellor) made the same Motion. It was impossible any longer to advance the proposition that danger was to be apprehended from the power of the Crown. God forbid, however, that there should be any deficiency of jealousy or watchfulness on the part of the people through their Representatives, or if they would, without their Representatives, against any encroachment on their li fetime me this phoneal of old wines | Mareely any last those of the rich class With pregunt to the welding eyetem, which obtained sinecure offices. Lord North had anne petaldialed by Mr. Bankesa Bill in a sinecure, but Mr. Canning had none. 1917, and which the Bill more besfors their Mr. Pitt had the wardenship of the Cinque Lumilakāpe paremind to alter, he doubted Ports, and he was almost the only brilliant webedbed it wore tot one of the widest de Minister who obtained a sinecure. He, pertures from the principle of the Constitu. therefore, did not attach much weight to Tom, were made. It was true that sinsure the argument, that the withholding of penplursa peleted, but in their inception they sions and sinecures would prevent men of fern tout en They were originally work-small fortunes, or none at all, from entering ding office, though in proses of time they had become almeentea, and were used as sunkovmuuta for puldie men, whom there was my other means of rewarding, Mr. Bankre in labogdog for word his Hill, con fronded that when auch officer were abol the public service. If, as was alleged, ships, whether they ever heard of a sinecure seon, a the herve " & mar might West ul the ai in hò enes and swee zil he ang svou në innger and that he woulÈ hen, të gë të the reashing he algic the TAX Y XEt wank dr IT him, use t invitat himsel with the aims and The getting mtr afte The Bill passed through a Committee. | been the law of the land. On these grounds Their Lordships afterwards heard further he was very much opposed to the clause as evidence in the case of the Warwick it stood at present. Borough. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Tuesday, June 24, 1834. MINUTES.] Petitions presented. By Mr. LLOYD, from several Places, in favour of the Sale of Beer Act Amendmission Bill; from one Place, against the Separation of Church and State; and from Wingrave, against the Poor Law Amendment Bill.-By Sir EDWARD KNATCHBULL, ment Bill; from some Places, against the University Ad from several Places, for Protection to the Established Church COUNSEL FOR PRISONERS.] Mr. Ewart moved, and the House resolved itself into Committee on the Prisoners' Counsel Bill. On the first clause of the Bill being proposed, Mr. Poulter was extremely desirous to remove all inequality by which prisoners were affected, under any circumstances. If the hon. member for Liverpool would consent to strike out the last proviso in the clause, every inequality would be removed. The prisoner would be put upon the same footing with the prosecutor, by being left to the exercise of the same privilege the prosecutor possessed of addressing the Court by his Counsel, and thus many of the erroneous verdicts which were frequently returned would be avoided, and the time of the Court of King's Bench not occupied with applications to set them aside. Unless the hon. Member would consent to withdraw the proviso, he (Mr. Poulter) should feel it to be his duty to take the sense of the House upon it. The hon. Member concluded by moving, that all the words after "notwithstanding" to the end of the clause, be expunged. Mr. Wynn said, the clause was objectionable on several grounds. Its effect would be, to prohibit the Counsel for the prosecution addressing the Jury, until after the depositions of the witnesses had been taken. But it must occur to every one at all conversant with the practice of criminal Courts, that in many cases of circumstantial evidence, there would be no possibility of obtaining a conviction, unless the Jury had pointed out to them previously by the Counsel, those strong points in the evidence of the witnesses which bore directly upon the charge in the indictment. He could mention a case where there could be no doubt entertained of the moral guilt of certain murderers, and yet it was impossible any conviction could have taken place, if the clause now under consideration had Sir William Rae said, the English law contained a great many imperfections when contrasted with the criminal law of Scotland. He could not understand the principle on which the English form of indictment was maintained. It gave no information to the prisoner of the nature of the offence for which he was to be tried, or stated directly what the charge was, for which he was to be arraigned at the Bar. The form of indictment in Scotland, however, contained a most accurate and minute statement of the crime of which the prisoner stood charged; and the time and place of its committal, together with all the circumstances attending it, were set forth in such simple and clear terms as to be intelligible to every person who read it. All these circumstances were so necessary to be correctly stated in the indictment, that if the evidence adduced in support of it at the trial turned out to be different to the circumstances contained in the indictment, that fact alone would be a sufficient defence on the part of the prisoner to secure his acquittal. The indictment rendered the case as plain as any statement by Counsel could possibly be, and in some cases a great deal plainer. In another part of the criminal law of England, a great anomaly existed, and it appeared very difficult for him to understand why, in a charge for a misdemeanour only, the pri soner should be permitted to address the Court by his Counsel, but that in a case where the life of a prisoner was concerned, such a permission was granted to the prosecutor, and not to the prisoner. Was it right that Counsel should be allowed against a prisoner, and that none should be permitted to address the Court in his defence? Viscount Howick said, it had been stated by the hon. member for Liverpool, that it would be most desirable, in effecting any alterations in the present law, to introduce no new or untried practice, but to let the new form of the proceedings in the trial of criminals be governed by some wellknown forms that had undergone fair trial, and were found on experience to operate well. He thought after the statement which the House had just heard from the hon. and learned Member, the object of the hon. member for Liverpool would not be accomplished by the clause now under consideration: there would still be a great discrepancy between the criminal law of Scotland and England. He was of opinion | Jury, and many guilty persons would the form of practice which was introduced escape. by the Bill of the hon. member for Liver- Mr. Pollock stated, that Mr. Wilde inpool, would lead to very great confusion and formed him that during seven months of inconvenience. He agreed with the right his shrievalty he had saved seven convicts hon. member for Montgomery, that a Jury from an ignominious death on the ground having nothing to guide them in a long and of their innocence alone. If this had been complicated case, but being called on to the case in seven months, it was alarming listen to the lengthened depositions of a to consider what a number of innocent great number of witnesses, would not be persons must have suffered in the course of able to come to such a sound and accurate years. The fact was, the prosecutor and conclusion, as they would if a concise and the prisoner were not on a par. He consecutive statement of the chief points of thought if the Amendment of the noble the evidence were made by the Counsel for Lord were adopted, without some check upon the prosecution in the first instance. The the counsel, the prisoner, instead of being hon. member for Liverpool had introduced benefitted, would be injured. Counsel had this Bill with a view of getting rid of a the power of placing a case much more great anomaly that existed in the process of strongly before a jury by means of an criminal proceedings. He was of opinion artful cross-examination in some cases, that this clause, instead of destroying an than by a regular address to the jury. He anomaly, would create one. By far the believed that justice would not be done to simplest course would be, to omit the the prisoner unless he were allowed a reply clause altogether, and to substitute a short upon the whole case, after the counsel for clause, declaring that the form of proceed- the prosecution should have observed upon ing in cases of felony should be the same the evidence on the part of the prisoner; as in cases of misdemeanour. This he and this was the opinion of a high legal authought would be much better than to thority. He did not think, if this was meddle with the Law of Evidence. Subse-permitted, so much time would be occuquent improvements might easily be made, pied in making the speeches as was already founded on experience, without encumber-consumed in the cross-examination of witing the present Bill, if the mode of crossexamination now practised, should be found not to be the best mode of eliciting the truth. Mr. Wynn was of opinion it would be a much more judicious course to leave it to the discretion of the judges to decide in what cases counsel should be heard on the part of the prosecutor, and also on the part of the prisoner. Mr. Eardley Wilmot had supported this Bill from feelings of humanity to the prisoner and justice to the public, and he could not help saying, that he considered this clause injurious to both, and on that ground he should oppose it. He had seen some thousand prisoners convicted in the course of twenty-eight years' experience, and he had never witnessed any conviction in which he believed the prisoner to be innocent. If this clause were permitted to pass, the time of the Court would be taken up with long speeches upon the indictment of every pickpocket who was brought before the Court; the feelings and passions of the jury would be appealed to, and a decision given that was not founded upon justice. He believed if the Bill passed in its present shape many innocent prisoners would be found guilty by the nesses. Mr. Ewart said, that one great object of the Bill was, to give the prisoner a reply on the prosecutor; let there be speech for speech, but not two speeches for one, and let the judge be merely an arbiter between the parties. He would propose an Amendment which would have this effect, allowing the statement of counsel to take precedence of the evidence, and this he thought would meet all the wishes that had been expressed. Sir George Grey expressed his full concurrence in the principle of the Bill, and was of opinion, after giving the subject his best consideration, that the most efficient way of carrying that principle into effect would be by the Amendment of the noble Lord (Lord Howick). He considered the Amendment just proposed by the hon. member for Liverpool quite useless, as it must be evident to every one acquainted with the proceedings in criminal cases, that there was a very wide difference between the opening speech for the prosecution, and the speech which a counsel would make on the behalf of a prisoner. Mr. Hill concurred in the general principle of the Bill, but thought justice would not be done to the prisoner in a criminal |