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.

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 been the law of the land. On these grounds he was very much opposed to the clause as it stood at present.

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 prisoner 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?

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 well-known 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 the form of practice which was introduced by the Bill of the hon. member for Liverpool, would lead to very great confusion and inconvenience. He agreed with the right hon. member for Montgomery, that a Jury having nothing to guide them in a long and complicated case, but being called on to listen to the lengthened depositions of a great number of witnesses, would not be able to come to such a sound and accurate conclusion, as they would if a concise and consecutive statement of the chief points of the evidence were made by the Counsel for the prosecution in the first instance. The hon. member for Liverpool had introduced this Bill with a view of getting rid of a great anomaly that existed in the process of criminal proceedings. He was of opinion that this clause, instead of destroying an anomaly, would create one. By far the simplest course would be, to omit the clause altogether, and to substitute a short clause, declaring that the form of proceeding in cases of felony should be the same as in cases of misdemeanour. This he thought would be much better than to meddle with the Law of Evidence. Subsequent improvements might easily be made, founded on experience, without encumbering the present Bill, if the mode of cross-examination now practised, should be found not to be the best mode of eliciting the truth.

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.

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 Jury, and many guilty persons would escape.

stated, that Mr. Wilde informed him that during seven months of his shrievalty he had saved seven convicts from an ignominious death on the ground of their innocence alone. If this had been the case in seven months, it was alarming to consider what a number of innocent persons must have suffered in the course of years. The fact was, the prosecutor and the prisoner were not on a par. He thought if the Amendment of the noble Lord were adopted, without some check upon the counsel, the prisoner, instead of being benefitted, would be injured. Counsel had the power of placing a case much more strongly before a jury by means of an artful cross-examination in some cases, than by a regular address to the jury. He believed that justice would not be done to the prisoner unless he were allowed a reply upon the whole case, after the counsel for the prosecution should have observed upon the evidence on the part of the prisoner; and this was the opinion of a high legal authority. He did not think, if this was permitted, so much time would be occupied in making the speeches as was already consumed in the cross-examination of witnesses.

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.

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.

concurred in the general principle of the Bill, but thought justice would not be done to the prisoner in a criminal case unless he had a right of reply upon the speech of the counsel for the prosecution.

thought, that it was most desirable that as little change should take place in the existing forms as possible in carrying the Amendment into effect. If an opening speech was allowed to the counsel for the prosecution, he agreed with the hon. member for Liverpool, the prisoner should enjoy the privilege of answering that speech by means of counsel. Great injury would be done to the prisoner by allowing the counsel for the prosecution a right of reply. Why, he asked, was the House so niggard of this trifle of mercy to the prisoner? For many years past, instances had continually occurred of the execution of innocent men. Would the House consent to the continuance of such lamentable occurrences? He attended a trial himself, and left it with a full conviction of the man's innocence. Had a counsel addressed the jury in his behalf, he must have been acquitted, but he had been a witness of that man's execution. Such dreadful consequences he wished to arrest, and therefore he should vote with the hon. member for Liverpool.

apprehended it was impossible to make a mathematical equalization of the right of addressing the Court by Counsel in every case. The case was surrounded with difficulties; but if an equal advantage could not be given to both parties, it became the duty of the House, if a preponderance must exist, to let it fall on the side of the accused. They ought not to lose sight of the old maxim, that it was better to let ten guilty men escape than to make one innocent man suffer.

was of opinion that the effect of the suggestion of the hon. and learned member for Huntingdon, that counsel should make two speeches, would render them very desirous to avoid making any.

rose to complain of a breach of privilege. "This morning," said the hon. Member, "as I was coming hither, I was interrupted in my progress and prevented from obtaining entrance into the House by troops in the streets and by a party of police blocking up its principal avenue. I endeavoured to get by the soldiers, and went down a little way below the door of the House, thinking that out of courtesy they would leave an opening for a member of Parliament. I was obliged, however, to return, and I returned along the line of soldiers and police, hoping and expecting that I should be able to come here. I found no means of getting here save through the lines of the police. As I was attempting to pass through, one of the police constables stopped me, and said, that I should not pass. I told him, that I must pass, as I was a member of Parliament. The constable replied 'It don't signify, you can't pass here.' This created some disturbance among the people round, and excited the attention of a person whom I take to have been a superintendent of police. I represented to him that I was a member of Parliament, on which he immediately said 'You must be permitted to go—you can cross here.' I cannot help thinking that it is an obstruction which ought not to be allowed—namely, the lining with troops the principal avenues of entrance to this House. Why are we to pass through a bristle of bayonets, and why, in avoiding them, are we to be exposed to the truncheons of the constables? I very much wish to know whether such practices are not unconstitutional. I think they are. I know no justification for assembling troops in this manner before the House. I know the reason why they were assembled to-day; but I think the troops are ordered out on such occasions too often. I would remind those in high situations of the saying of that glorious Sovereign, Queen Elizabeth, who declared that her subjects were her best guards. I shall end my complaint, by a Motion for an address to the Crown, which I trust will elicit the information whether an opening was ordered to be left this day for members of Parliament to enter this House. I should also like to know by whose orders it was, that the avenues were obstructed."

, in rising to second the Motion, said, that he did not consider it one of peculiar interest. It was not, however, useless to call the attention of the House to the conduct of the police that day, which he must say had been brutal and disgusting. The hon. member for Ashton was stopped by them; he had himself been stopped by them twice, very insolent and brutal language had been employed by them towards him, and such conduct ought not in his opinion to pass without notice from the House. Without entering further into the arguments of the hon. member for Ashton, he would observe, that it was as necessary and of as much importance that members of the House of Commons should come down without obstruction to that place to do their duty to the people, as it was that any other person, be his rank or dignity what it might, should go without obstruction on a party of pleasure. He thought that the Speaker, and every gentleman then in the House, would see the necessity of preserving the importance of the House in the importance of its humblest members. He concluded by seconding the Motion of Colonel Williams.

said, that he had heard with great regret, that the hon. member for Coventry had that day been exposed to ill-treatment from the police. Still he thought that those who were responsible for the management of the police had reason to complain of the course pursued by the hon. member for Coventry. If, instead of making a formal complaint to the House, the hon. Member had first complained to those who were responsible for the conduct of the police ["Oh! oh!"]. Hon. Gentlemen might exclaim "Oh! oh!" but he thought that they would agree with him, that it was almost impossible to prevent a case of individual misconduct from occurring sometimes among so large a force. He was sure, that the House at large—and still more, that the Members of the Committee now engaged in examining into the constitution of the police of the metropolis—would agree with him, when he stated, that there was every disposition on the part of the authorities to check in the most decisive manner every case of misconduct on the part of the police. Brought before the House as the case had been by the hon. member for Coventry, the House could have no opportunity of hearing what was to be said on the other side. If the hon. Member had only favoured him with a statement of his complaint, he would have taken care to learn, for the information of the House, what could be said on the other side. At all events, it would have saved the time of the House if the hon. Member had made his complaint to the Commissioners of Police, by whom it would have been immediately investigated, and by whom, if any case of misconduct had been discovered, the individuals guilty of it would have been instantly dismissed. As to the inconvenience which had that day been suffered by Members of Parliament coming down to the House, he had learned it, he must say, with surprise. He had himself come down to the House within twenty minutes after his Majesty had first gone by, and had found no difficulty whatever in getting into the House. This was all that he now found it necessary to state; but of course a proper examination would be instantly commenced into the subject matter of this complaint.

hoped, that he might be permitted to say a few words in explanation. He thought, that before the noble Lord who had just sat down had made such a speech as that which he had just delivered, he should have known what had been said by those to whom he was professing to give an answer. The complaint against the police had not been brought forward by him, but by another hon. Member. On that complaint being brought forward, he had stood up to state what he had seen and experienced himself in the course of the day. He hoped that he might be permitted to make another observation, though it was not strictly in the way of explanation. He did not think it consistent either with the dignity of that House, or with the dignity of its Members, that they should go up and down hunting out the noble Lord as a receptacle for their complaints, when the insult of which they complained was not so much an insult to themselves personally, as an insult to the House.

observed, that the noble Lord had told the House, that he had come down to it shortly after his Majesty had arrived at the Abbey. Now, he (Mr. Warburton) had come down to it about ten minutes before his Majesty's arrival at the Abbey, and, like the noble Lord, he had met with nothing in the shape of obstruction. This, however, after the positive evidence of two hon. Members, was not sufficient to prove a negative. It was therefore possible that obstruction had been given to two hon. Members, upon whose evidence he begged it to be understood that he did not mean to cast the slightest doubt, though obstruction had not been given to the noble Lord or to himself. He must however tell the noble Lord, that the course pursued on this occasion by the hon. and gallant Officer, the member for Ashton, was by no means singular, for many Members would recollect that a noble Lord, not now a Member of this House, but formerly member for Yorkshire (Earl Fitzwilliam) on meeting an obstruction from the Guards of his late Majesty in Pall-mall, as he was coming down to the House, made a formal complaint of it to Parliament. He must say, with their Standing Order staring them in the face, that the avenues to both Houses of Parliament should be kept clear. The proper place for any Member who had met with an obstruction to make his complaint in, was before the Speaker in the House of Commons.

Are we to appeal to the Commissioners of Police when we meet with obstructions as we come down to the House to perform our public functions? and are not you, Sir, the fit protector of the privileges of the Commons of England, when they are obstructed in the discharge of their duties? This music-shop which is opened over the way, is not to be an impediment to us ["Oh! oh!"] I don't care for your crying "Oh! oh!" It is not a ceremony belonging to the State—it is not a prerogative attached to the Crown—if it were, we should all be ready to protect and attend it. We have now before us the unequivocal evidence of two Members of Parliament, who were impeded by the soldiery and police in coming down to the House; and it is inconsistent with the Constitution, that we should make our complaints on that score to any noble Lord, however high in office, or to any Commissioners of Police, however well paid. It is your province, Sir, as I know it is your wish, to vindicate our privileges; and we are not to be turned round to a Police Commissioner, when a Breach of Privilege has undoubtedly been committed.

Having been so distinctly appealed to by the hon. and learned member for Dublin, I must premise by stating, that I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not wish—for he could not expect—that I should give an opinion upon the merits of this complaint. The hon. and learned Gentleman states very distinctly, that the privileges of the House are to be maintained by the House. The Speaker is the servant of the House; and if the hon. and gallant member for Ashton had not thought proper to save the Speaker the trouble of noticing this matter to the House by complaining of it himself, it would have been the duty of the Speaker to have mentioned it to the House. But as to expressing an opinion upon the course to be pursued by the House in consequence of the complaint, that is a duty which the House has never yet devolved upon the Speaker, and I hope that so heavy a burthen will never be devolved upon me so long as I have the honour of filling this Chair. The hon. and learned Member, no doubt, adverts to our Sessional Order, that the avenues to this House are to be kept clear. That Order having been made, it is incumbent upon the High Constable of Westminster, and upon all his subordinate officers of police, to see that it be carried into execution. As to any particular case in which that Order has been infringed, whether it be in the case of hon. Members who have been obstructed by parties not knowing them, or by accident, that is matter of inquiry for the House. Hon. Members do right in bringing their complaints here; but, having said that, I am sure that there is not one man now present who would not object to the Speaker's rising to give his opinion upon the merits of them.

admitted, that in any case where the privileges of the House had been infringed in the person of an hon. Member, that Member had a full right to make his complaint in the House. The only question in this particular instance was, as to the course which the hon. Member might think it best to pursue. His own opinion was, and he knew nothing more of the case than what he had heard from the hon. Member, that time should be allowed for inquiry, whether the interruption had been caused through ignorance, by some policeman totally unacquainted with his duties, or whether it took the appearance of an intentional, and therefore a grave infraction of the privileges of the House. He thought it right that inquiry should be made into the subject, but he also thought it right that the hon. and gallant member for Ashton should refrain from making any Motion upon it, or should adjourn the Motion which he had already made, until a state- ment had been received as to the circumstances under which the interruption had been given by the police. If it should turn out that there were one or two individuals who from ignorance had offended, the hon. Member would take the course which he might think proper; but if it should turn out that there had been an intentional infringement of the privileges of Parliament, it would be the duty of the House to take it up.

stated his belief, that the obstruction which arose this morning, and which might occur again on the three subsequent days if steps were not taken to prevent it, had been occasioned by a file of soldiers stationed on each side of the street opposite to the House. There was no occasion for having soldiers stationed nearer the Abbey than Bridge-street, and he thought that if the duty of preserving order was left to the police there would be no ground of complaint.

expressed his belief that there had been no intentional obstruction or infringement of the privileges of Members, and recommended the hon. Member to withdraw his Motion.

informed the noble Lord, who appeared to mistake the hon. member for Coventry's share in the question for his, that he was the Mover of the Resolution. Although the noble Lord might be known and allowed to pass, he had been impeded. He repeated that he had experienced obstruction; he had stated the facts roundly, and explained to the House his whole progress, downwards and upwards. He did not attempt to break through the ranks of the soldiers; on the contrary, he very submissively walked in their rear, till he came near the House, and then the outrage took place. The obstruction was unjustifiable. There was no occasion for having any street, particularly that leading to the House of Commons, lined with bayonets. He was willing to accede to his hon. friend's suggestion and withdraw the Motion. He hoped, however, that the matter would be taken into consideration. His object was, to get at the parties who had given the improper orders.

certainly did pay rather more attention to the hon. member for Coventry than to the gallant Mover, because it appeared that the statement of the former Gentleman was more serious, as involving the use of brutal language to Members of the House. It seemed that as soon as the superintendent came up, way was made for the hon. Member. If any policeman had mistaken his orders, or misconducted himself, no doubt he would be reprimanded. He promised that inquiry should be made into the subject.

rose to bring forward his Motion, relative to the duties on East-India produce. This was the second time he presented himself to the House for the purpose of pressing on them the justice and the necessity of removing that inequality of duties which now affected their fellow-subjects in the East Indies. If the Motion should not be assented to now, he would bring it forward Session after Session, until justice should be done to the natives of India, and to the manufacturers and consumers of Great Britain. Several inhabitants of Calcutta presented a Petition to that House, praying that the duties on sugar and rum should be equalized; and this petition was supported subsequently by a petition from the East-India Company itself, and recommended by the Committee of their own House which sat two years back on trade and commerce. The Report of that Committee recommended five things; first, the opening of the China trade; secondly, that the East-India Company should cease to act as a trading Company; thirdly, that the transit duties should be repealed; but their principal recommendation was, that the duties on sugar, rum, tobacco, and coffee, the produce of the East Indies, should be equalized. The first duty, that on sugar, was, however, by far the most important. It amounted to 32s. a-hundred, while the duty on West-India sugar was only 24s. This article might be successfully cultivated throughout the immense territory of Hindostan, but was comparatively neglected in consequence of so onerous a duty. The capacity of the country to produce this article had been abundantly proved before Committees of that House, and the inhabitants only wanted encouragement and civilization to produce it to any extent. Their machinery for pressing the cane was at present, from want of encouragement, of the worst description. This boon could not be much longer refused, now that Englishmen were at liberty to settle in India. The cultivation of sugar there was stationary since 1810; while in the Mauritius, in consequence of the equalization of the duties with those on West- India produce, it had increased five-fold within the same period. The amount of sugar now produced all over the East-India possessions was not more than four times the quantity of beet-root sugar produced in France alone. The West-India sugar was decreasing in quantity. They could not send sufficient to this country. These duties operated most mischievously on the sugar-refining business. The sufferings of the sugar manufacturers were great, and the sugar-refining trade was migrating to other countries, where it met with no restrictions, but, on the contrary, received protection. Many sugar manufacturers had stopped their work during the last year, and the number of pans employed in sugar-refining had considerably diminished even since Christmas last. Our machines were going to the United States of America. where they would be employed for the benefit of that country, and to the disadvantage of this country. He really did not know how long the Government meant to refuse to intercede in favour of the sugar-refiners. The next article on which there was a restrictive duty was the important article of coffee. The duty on East-India coffee was fifty per cent higher than that produced in the West-India colonies. The duty on West-India coffee was only 6d. per pound, while a duty of 9d. per pound was levied on coffee the product of the East-Indies. In fact, for fifty years East-India coffee had to pay a duty of 2s. He trusted, that the time was fast approaching when such a system of injustice would be done away with. Coffee the produce of Jamaica, which was consumed by the rich only, paid a duty of seventy per cent, while on Ceylon coffee, which would be consumed by the poor, a duty of no less than 260 per cent was levied. Was that right or just? What was worse, the West-India colonies did not produce sufficient coffee for the consumption of this country, as was admitted last year by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Board of Trade. When such was the fact, why should those restrictive duties be continued so long? In the countries where such duties did not exist, the consumption of coffee had materially increased. In the United States it had doubled within the last five years, and it might be said, that an inhabitant of America drank four times as much coffee as an inhabitant of Great Britain. This was to be attributed to the different scale of duties. East-Indian coffee was of inferior quality to West-Indian, and yet it was loaded with a heavier duty; so that the tax was greatly prejudicial to the poor, who, but for it, might be able to purchase the cheaper article. He would suggest, that the duty on the low-priced East-India coffee should not be higher than that placed on the superior coffee of the West-India colonies. It was difficult to discriminate the different kinds of tea, yet he saw with surprise that an attempt was made in the late Act to discriminate them, in order to apply a graduated ad valorem duty to each different kind. It would be much easier to discriminate the different sorts of sugar and coffee, and common justice called for such a distinction being made. The next article on which there was a discriminating duty was tobacco. On East-India tobacco there was a duty of 3s. per pound, whilst on that imported from the North American colonies the duty was only 2s. 9d. a pound. He could not see the necessity of this difference in duty, since tobacco came exclusively from the United States, so that there were no colonies to protect by this duty. The same might be nearly said of East-India cigars, since the duty they paid was the same as that imposed on Havannah cigars, and this when cheroots were of an inferior quality to Cubas. He would now come to the articles of pepper and pimento. The latter was a West-India production, the former came from the East Indies. The same duty ought to be placed upon both articles, yet the duty on pepper was ls., while that on pimento was 5d. A reduction had taken place lately in the duties on both articles, the consequence of which was, that the consumption of them had increased. The same thing had taken place with respect to rice since the duty on it had been reduced. If the duty on coffee were reduced, the consumption of it would likewise increase. The next article on which there was a discriminating duty was rum. The duty on West-India rum was 9s. per gallon, whilst East-India rum was subject to a duty of 15s. per gallon. That was one of the articles referred to in the petition from Calcutta to which he had alluded in the beginning of his speech. If the people of those countries were encouraged to produce such commodities, why in the name of justice was not a market afforded to them? He thought that the West-Indians would have been a little more grateful for the generosity of this country in granting them 20,000,000l., and that they would have ceased their complaints, and been willing to abandon their monopoly. He hoped that this would be the last time he would have to appeal on this subject to the House; that Government between the present and next Session would take the subject into their consideration, and sweep away all those discriminating duties. The hon. Member concluded by moving—"That the rates of duty imposed on articles the produce of our Eastern possessions ought, with the least possible delay, to be reduced to an equality with the rates levied on articles the produce of the other possessions of Great Britain."