had been abolished. Many illegal exactions took place under the name of drink-money, which called loudly for abolition. In the Court of Exchequer, one baron, and a deputy-remembrancer, had not been appointed, who, as they had not been abolished by legislative enactment, might at any time be revived. The noble lord then animadverted on the composition of the Sheriffs', Lord Lyon's, and Justices of Peace Courts, all of which, he contended, required revision and reformation. The 11th report related to the Scotch Burgh Courts, on which he (Lord A. H.) had failed to persuade the House to enter into his views. On this subject, the recommendation of the commissioners had been wholly unattended to, and the bill introduced by the learned lord had been wholly without efficacy.

The Lord Advocate could have understood the object of the noble lord, had he proposed to refer the reports of the commissioners to a select committee. He, for himself, could say that he felt no objection to carry into effect the reports of the commissioners. The reports were valuable for the information they contained, and, upon the whole, were highly creditable to the character of the Scotch Courts. With respect to the Lord Lyon's Court, and the complaints that had been made of the Lord Lyon having, on the payment of a fee, granted permission to persons to have supporters to their arms, who were not entitled to them, he had only to state, that, on his recommendation, the Secretary of State had signified to the officer holding that situation, that if he persisted in such an invasion of the royal prerogative, legal measures would be adopted to teach him his duty. That he conceived to be sufficient. The noble lord went on to state, that most of the recommendations of the commissioners had been carried into effect,

and the rest were about to be so. His situation was peculiarly delicate. If he proposed no bills he was accused of neglect of duty; if he brought in bills, he had been opposed in every stage by the noble lord and the honourable gentlemen opposite. That had been particularly the case with the bill for regulating the Commissary Courts; a bill which went to abolish 20 offices in the gift of the Crown, which had been opposed in all its stages by the noble lord. The quarter sessions were almost unknown in Scotland, and he was of opinion, that the justices of Scotland might have the same power of trying causes at their quarter-sessions, that the justices in England possessed. Such a step was calculated to raise the character of the gentry of Scotland, and also to promote the administration of justice. At the time of the disturbances of Glasgow, the noble lord, as well as others, left that part of the country, instead of giving their support to government. This they had done, from the belief that the whole duty should be done by the Sheriff and the Lord Advocate. He was disposed to refer the report relative to the justices to a select committee..

After some conversation, the motion was negatived by a majority of 124 to 48.

Mr Peel, in the course of the session, prepared and moved a bill founded upon the late report of the Parliamentary commission, for the general amendment of the forms of Scottish judicature. It was to commence in May of the following year; and though the session was now far advanced, there was a general understanding that the bill would be pressed through before its close. In Scotland, however, a strong and sudden movement manifested itself against so precipitate a conclusion. Although the measure

was now brought forward by ministry, yet the leading persons connected with them in that country were foremost in opposing its immediate passing. A meeting was called of the county of Edinburgh, in which Mr Dundas, nephew of the late Lord Melville, moved a petition for delay till next session. The detail of the bill, it was observed, had come down only on the 11th of June, this being the 15th, and if it passed this session, it must pass before the end of the month. It was impossible, therefore, for the people of Scotland, or the bodies connected with the law, to form, and, much more, to express, anything like a deliberate opinion upon its merits. Nothing, it was alleged, could be more unjust and indecent, or more opposite to Whig principles, than thus to change the whole legal constitution of a country almost without its knowledge, and without the possibility of its being heard on the subject. These arguments were somewhat unanswerable, and the Whigs had little to say on any general principle. They could only declare their deep presentiment, that if the measure were not pushed through now, it would never get through at all; that their opponents, if they should obtain the delay now craved, would call such machinery into play, as would either put a stop to the passing of any bill whatever, or would render it of a frivolous and nugatory nature, which would leave untouched all the grand abuses of the system. The other party absolutely denied any such sweeping plan or determination; and in the issue, only four voted against the motion of Mr Dundas. The faculty of advocates, the writers to the signet, the solicitors or agents, and all the bodies connected with the administration of justice, met and prepared similar petitions.

On the 17th June, when Mr Peel was to move the second reading of the

bill, the table was covered with petitions from the above bodies. The honourable Secretary, therefore, stated, that it was not his intention to press it through Parliament in the present session. He understood that the representatives for Scotland were very anxious to have an opportunity of consulting their constituents, and that those constituents were most desirous to have time to prepare, and present petitions to the House.

Mr Abercromby confessed that he had been much disheartened by the speech of the right honourable gentleman, as, after the delivery of it, it would be merely a mockery to hold out to the people of Scotland the slightest hope that the bill under consideration would ever be passed into a law, at least during the administration of the right honourable gentleman.

The Lord Advocate observed, that the 11th of May next was the day upon which it was proposed that this measure should take effect. It was clear, therefore, that none of that haste contended for by the honourable and learned gentlemen opposite was in reality called for. He considered it would be a very unfair course not to allow the population of Scotland the opportunity of expressing their opinion of a measure which so nearly concerned them. He had done his utmost to prevent the bill passing this session, and if there was any crime, he was chargeable with it.

Mr Kennedy was afraid that, by the clamour which was raised, and the ignorant opinions which were expressed, the measure would be ultimately sacrificed.

Mr Courtenay said, that as to whether this bill would be in a better state if brought forward at an earlier period of the session, was not now the question. He, for one, regretted that it had not; but he quite agreed with his

right honourable friend, Mr Peel, in the propriety of postponing it at pre

sent.

Lord Binning thought the House ought to avoid the appearance of disrespect in thrusting down the throats of the people of Scotland a measure which they conceived to be second to none in importance since the act of Union; and he was convinced that the proposed delay was essentially necessary, either to insure the success of the measure, or to render it at all satisfactory to that country.

Mr Secretary Canning said he consented to the postponement of the measure out of a feeling of respect for the people of Scotland, who were at present greatly opposed to the bill. The conduct of government had been censured in this question; but let the House remember, that up to a very late period there was no idea of the kind of feeling which existed on the subject. But he would venture to predict, in opposition to the predictions of gentlemen opposite, that in the course of next session this bill would substantially pass into a law -The House would shew itself wanting in discretion to force down a measure in opposition to the public feeling. In proposing delay, he had no other object in view than to soothe the present hostile feeling, and by soothing, to overcome it; and he thought it much better that the measure should stop here, than be suspended in the other House, as if there existed some doubt of its propriety.— And even though the government might subject themselves, as they had anticipated, to the observations of the honourable gentlemen opposite, they thought it preferable to stop the measure here, paying so much deference to the national feeling of Scotland.

The bill for regulating the choice of juries in Scotland, which had been

pressed for some time by Mr Kennedy, was carried this Session in the House of Commons. Its objects were to prevent any possibility of the packing of juries, to withdraw from the judges the influence which they at present possessed in the important process to which the bill related, and to cause it to be regulated either by rotation or ballot. In the House of Lords, however, it was negatived without a division, on the motion of Lord Melville, who objected to some of its provisions, but, at the same time, undertook to bring in a bill next session, embracing all its essential objects.

Mr Lamb, on the 6th April, brought in a motion to reform that certainly very strange feature of English law, which refuses counsel to prisoners tried for felony. He did not wish to propose any violent innovations which might make our old lawyers startle in their graves, but he wished to secure for the accused an important instrument for obtaining justice. He thought it most unfortunate that it had ever been held, "the Court could be counsel for the prisoner." This, he maintained, the Court could not be. No judge could act for a prisoner with the same acuteness as counsel could, however he might wish to do it. The judge could only know the case from the depositions laid before him; but there were many things which a prisoner could communicate to his counsel, which it was important that he should know, and which he could not convey to a judge. The distinctions taken between the situations of judge and counsel for the prisoner were frequent. In the case of a person of the name of Udall, in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, the prisoner having asked how many of the jurors he might challenge, was answered, "I can't tell you, I sit here as judge, and not as counsel." A similar opinion had been

expressed on the occasion of another trial in the same reign. He objected altogether to the idea of considering the judge as counsel for the prisoner. There had been times, and though it was not to be expected, it was possible that such times would return again, when this safeguard for human life would be found in a Jeffries, a Page, or an Ayscough. He was aware that the gentlemen opposite would be likely to say this is all very well, but what practical evil is there to be made the subject of complaint? He would say, that he thought it not enough that justice should be impartially administered, but that the public should feel satisfied that it was so. Were counsel not allowed, how could age, infirmity, idiocy, or insanity, defend themselves. In the case of a person who was insane, how affecting was the situation of the party accused when called upon to prove his own insanity, and to explain how it acted upon him. On the trial of Lord Ferrers, the noble prisoner complained that he was reduced to the miserable necessity of trying to prove his own want of understanding. He did not propose to dwell on the evils experienced in modern times, but if he did he should refer to the case of that ruffian in Hertfordshire, who had lately occupied the public attention, and who had not only disgraced himself, but had also made many others disgrace themselves, by the stupid admiration which had been expressed on the subject of his conduct at the close of his career. He would ask those who had watched that man, from the time of his arrest to that of his trial, if they did not believe that he had been buoyed up, not by the hope of acquittal perhaps, but by the expectation of cutting a figure by means of the silly farrago which he had got together, and thus, going out of the world with eclat, furnish a setoff against the guilt of the murderer

in the lustre which would attach to the orator and the man.

Mr North pronounced a high panegyric on the criminal justice of the country, in which everything was as favourable as possible for the prisoner. He doubted much if it would be advantageous to give him more. At present the counsel for the prosecution felt himself bound to give a simple and colourless detail of the facts. Were counsel allowed to plead for the defence, it would be their duty to struggle with the evidence, and if they could not convince the jury, they would endeavour to affect them. The consequence of this would be, that a different course from that now taken would be pursued by those who conducted the prosecution, and the sober tribunal of a court of justice would become an arena for the contention of two disputants, the stake for which they struggled being the life of a man. There had been no petitions for this change, as there was for every other in which the people felt themselves really interested. It might be wished for by dillettanti lawyers and philosophers, but the people did not require it.

Sir James Macintosh admitted the ability of the pleading made by the last speaker, but saw no reason which he had given for such an anomaly in the law. It was certainly a maxim of British law, that a man charged with any crime should have the fullest means of defence, but how came it in this case, that a man, mistrusting his own ability to defend himself, should not be allowed to call for other assistance? The burthen of proof was certainly on the side of those who undertook to vindicate this notorious deviation from the principle of natural justice. That it was such a deviation, he appealed for proof to those codes of civilized nations, which recorded and deposited the moral feelings and judgments of

the whole human race. He appealed to Scotland and to the United States of America, in both of which cases a full and open defence, not a mutilated defence connived at by the law, was allowed. Where could be the difference between the prisoner in the case of treason or misdemeanour, and that of the felon, excepting that in the two first cases men of talent and education, capable of making some defence for themselves, were on their trial, and in the other, poor and ignorant individuals, who possessed no means of defence within themselves. He joined his honourable and learned friend, Mr Lamb, in deprecating the false sympathy which had been shewn on the subject of the late trial at Hertford-a sympathy in favour of one of the most execrable ruffians that ever disgraced society. With regard to the defence made on that occasion, he considered that had there been any doubt whatever in the case, this defence would have removed it. It was a most fatal defence, assuming a theatrical appearance, and affording a proof that the mind of the man had early assumed a theatrical character, to which he clung in his last moments, to the exclusion even of consideration of the danger of his situation, and which throughout life had imparted that desperately resolute and wickedly intrepid character to his mind which made him shrink from no act.

The Attorney-General conceived, that an alteration in the law would be in the extremest degree injurious, and would have no tendency to elicit truth or benefit the party accused. Nothing, he considered, could be more fair, candid, or cool, than the discussion in a court of justice in a case of life and death. There was no one in that House who had not witnessed such a scene, and he asked whether anything could be better conducted? The greatest order and regularity prevailed;

there was no excitement, nor anything which could at all interfere with a candid and impartial inquiry. If this, then, were the case, ought they not to pause before they assented to an innovation of the nature now demanded? In all cases where life was involved, the counsel for the prosecution did not go beyond a cool and naked statement of the case; if he departed from this line, it was well known that the judge interposed. Now if this alteration was made, they would have the whole thing changed into a contest of counsel, with the passions of both sides heated and brought into play.

The Solicitor-General urged similar arguments; while Dr Lushington, Mr Denman, and Mr Martin of Galway supported the motion. Mr Denman bore his testimony, as a judge, to the benefit which those acting in that capacity would derive from the measure proposed. He considered it a libel upon the judge to say that he acted as counsel for the prisoner.

The motion, of which we must say that the reasons urged in opposition do not appear to have been very cogent, was negatived by a majority only of 30, (80 to 50.)

The question of Parliamentary reform slumbered, in a great measure, during the present session. The only shape in which it came forward was a local case, certainly of a very prominent character. Mr Abercromby brought forward a motion for a reform in the single case of the representation of Edinburgh. He had last year, he observed, in obedience to the wishes of a numerous, intelligent, and respectable body of his fellow-citizens, presented the petition which they had just heard read; at the time that he had received it, the House was engaged in urgent business; and he had postponed founding any motion upon it, until he might have better reason to hope