The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1860-02-07 00:00:00

WEDNESDAY.

loner,

lie. Wiliam:in, in moving the second reading of the
Appeal in Criminal Cams Bill, stated that it wu sub-
stantially the mane as that of a previous session, with a
few alterations to obviate objections. He reinforced
his argument in support of the Bill by testimonies from
high authorities in favour of this change in our criminal
procedure.
Mr. W. Ewsee seconded the motion, and supported
the Bill, recommending that it should be referred to a
Select Committee.
Sir G. Lewis impressed upon the House the impor-
tance of this question, and the serious consequences
that would result from the adoption of the principle of
the Bill. fir. ifliabon, hr observed, had alleged no
practical grievance ; he had relied upon the authori-
tim in favour of an appeal and a new trial in criminal
as well as civil miss; but be (Sir G. Lewis) had come to
the conclusion that the weight of authorities was most
decidedly on the opposite side. The absence of such
appeals was nearly universal in other countries, and
there must therefore be some good reason for this dis-
tinction between civil and criminal eases. The lemon
was given by Lord Denman in 1848—namely, that there
was no antagonism in criminal as in civil cases, where
personal interests were involved. in criminal mass a

burden was cast upon prosecutors, and if • new trial
were allowed in such cases, there would be so much dif-
ficulty in getting the prosecutor and the witnesses toge-
ther again, that practically there would seldom be a new
trial. It was said that there was a large number of
improper convictions. He denied that there was any
ground for affirming the frequency of elleli cases. He
pointed out the probable consequences of the proposed
change—the delay and uncertainty it would import into
the administration of our criminal law ; the multipli-
cation of trials, which would re_juire an addition to the
judicial bench ; the costs of the new trial, which if they
were to he paid by a poor man, would make the remedy
a mockery, and they must eventually be defrayed out of
some public fund ; and if an algolute right of appeal
were given to a prisoner, it would be unjust to deny it
to the prosecutor. He suggested other considerations
which should operate as reasons for resisting the change,
in Ireland and Scotland, as well as England. The invo-
cation of the prerogative of the Crown to mitigate sen-
tences and pardon offences was open to the poorest pri-
soner, whose application to the home-office could be
made without delay, formality, or expense. He moved
to defer the second reading of the Bill for six months.
Mr. DENMAN, speaking from his experience as a
sessions barrister, said he had never doubted, except in
one instance, the correctness of the verdict of the jury
in criminal prosecutions. The question of costs, in his
opinion, was at the root of the whole matter. If the
motion had been for a Committee to consider the ques-
tion of criminal prosecutions, lie should have supported
it, but lie opposed • Bill that would give • power to
the rich as distinct from tue poor, create delay, and lead
to further changes.
Mr. PHILIPPS opposed the Bill. He thought the
right it gave would not be for the benefit of • pri-
soner.
Mr. JAMES observed that the machinery of the Bill
which ignored the existing Court of Criminal Appeal
and threw • burden upon the Court of Queen's Bench,
already overburdened, was utterly impracticable. A
conviction for murder might be suspended for three
terms. Considering that the passing of such a measure
would injure an ohject be approved, he supported the
amendment.
Mr. Gnonne likewise opposed the Bill, concurring
with Sir G. Lewis that there was no foundation whatever
for the measure, which would be mischievous to the
last degree.
Mr. alr.tum, agreeing with Mr. James that the
machinery of the Bill was impossible and impracticable,
was of opinion that the proposed change would be no
improvement of the existing system, and that it would
not operate beneficially for the pock.
Mr. HENLEY dwelt upon the practical difficulties
which would be created by certain provisions of the
Bill. No case had been made out, he remarked, of any
real injustice or injury now dune to anybody; the grimy-
ance wss theoretical only.
The HOLIVITON.GENEHAL, in arguing against the Bill,
noticed the want of support it lied experienced, Mr.
Ewart, who seconded the motion for the second
reading, having virtually thrown it overboard. He
insisted that the inconsistency of giving a new trial in
one class of cases and denying it in another afforded 110
reason whatever for this Bill, which was founded upon
an assumed analogy between a civil action and a criminal
prosecution, which did not exist.
Mr. HIGHT Sermons. without supporting the present
Bill, suggested that something ought to be done
to cure an admitted evil, the present right of resort
to the Court of Criminal Appeal resting upon too
narrow a basis.
Mr. LONGFIELD spoke in defence of the principle el!
the Bill. He considered the present mode of revising
sentences in the Home-office a most imperfect substitute
for a new trial.
Mr. M'M.imos having replied to the objections urged
by Sir. (I. Lewis, the amendment was agreed to; so the
Bill is lost.
Mr. HADFIELD moved the second reading of ths
Qualification for Offices Abolition Bill.
Lord LOVAINE objected to the motion.
Sir G. Lewis explained the state of the law on this
subject, and put it to the House whether it was worth
while to keep up this qualification.
Ultimately, on the anotion of Mr. NEWDEGATE, the
debate was adjourned.
In a l'uniiiiittee of Supply, on the motion of Mr.
LAING, a resolution was agreed to, that £1.3,230,1XX)
be granted to fler Majesty to pay off and discharge the
Exchequer-bills charged on the aids of 18410, unprovided

!or.
The
.St..Mary-in-ltydal
.Marriages' Validity Bill was

- .
read a third tune and paabed.
'rho HOILIst adjourned at half-past 5 o'clock.