The Express.
London, England, 1853-06-02 00:00:00

PUBLIC BUSINESS,

TRIALS IN CRIDIINAL CASES BILL.

The order for th;ll4Co;l7e.;;lrlig iltZliber;;;;d,
Mr. }WART presented several petitions in favour of the
_ .

Mr. 1. BUTT moved that the bill be reads second time.
He explained that his otj•et was to establish • system under',
which new trials might he demanded as • matter of right
to criminal eases. In civil cases either party discontented
with the verdict might carry his appeal to the highest tel. I
bunal, hut in criminal cases the right of appeal depended
on the discretion of the judge, however mistaken the jury
ofght have been in point of fact, or the judge ia point of
law. Surely that was a most anomalous state of the law,
which while it gave security against the commission of in-'
justice by the error of the judge nr of the jury in cases
where property only was concerned, denied it in: cases
'.here the sacrifice of personal liberty, or even of life was
tosulveil, end which allowed an appeal against the
decision of the Chief Justice of one of the
sd,crior courts and • special jury, and refused it
as against the decision of • recorder, or inferior local judge
and a common jury. He would not now en•er into
any description of the machinery by which he sought to
ear/ out his übject—but looking at the lateness of the
se.•em, and the great amount of business before the house,
what h. proposed was to ask the house to affirm the prin-
ci;•le of the bill by reeding it • second time, and then to
fifer it to • sel►ct committee, reserving the discussion until
the measure cams back to the house from that tribunal.
He proposed to confine the bill in the first inst•ses to be-
low'. bait of course if it should pass it would be necessary to
introduce • similar bill for Eogland, consequently he must
bo ondendod as submitting it to the house as an imperial
qoestion.
Mr. EWART had much pleasure in seconding the
motion. The bill was similar io its general principle to one
which had been introduced some years ago with his some
on the back.

Mr. J. PHILLIMORE did not anticipate any great
ben-lit from the proposed measure. The evil to be guarded
against in this country was much more the escape of
t..e guilty than the punishment of the fawn:aut.
The law as it stood allowed tit- judge wherever soy doubt
of law or of het existed in his mind, to grant an appeal,
which be thought sufficient to meet the ends of justice.
Lord l'A L ME ItSTON had strong objections to the principle
the hon. and learned gentleman wished to establish. Pu-
nishments were not iatlicted by way of vengeance on the
criminal, but to protect society by de:erring others from
the commission of crime; and there could be no greater
advantage in the administration of criminal law than that
it should be certain, and as rapid in its completion as was
cos:instant with the ends of justice. (Hear, hear.) Let
thaw 'amine what would be the working of the law,
as altered by the propos,l bill. Even in civil actions,
although the obligation of an oath was generally re-
'petted, troth was sometimes violated; but in cries'
mil CYO., he was sorry to say, benevolent persons did not
seem to have any conscience at all. (Laughter.) It was
not long since a most respectable person, a member of the
Society of Friends, attempted to bribe a witness, in order,
by his absence at the trial, to screen an atrocious criminal,
album whose guilt there could not be the slightest
shadow of doubt. He had no doubt that, if
this bill became law, every ease would be the
subjoet of an appeal; persons would be sent round the
country to get petitions signed, and a moss of perjury
would, be had no doubt, be the result. Besides, there was
great cruelty in the delay of molts' punishments. If the
necessities of justice required capital punishment, humanity
demanded that the unfortunate criminal's feelings should
mot he unnecessarily lacerated, and prompt execution was
the most humane policy. Again, if they allowed an appeal
to the criminal, they should also give one to the prosecutor
in assault cases and actious of a similar description, and the
reni:t must inevitably be endless litigation and a manifest ob-
struction of justice. Having all these objections, then, and re-
memhering, besides, that a C3ollllis4loll was now sitting on
the criminal law to which this matter might properly be
r.f:rred, and by whom it could best be discussed, he
thought he should beat be fulfilling his duty by moving
t'..st the bill br read • second time that day six months.
Mr. NUNN supported the bill, and cited the opinion of
V.e chief baron in favour of the establishment of a court of
appeal.
Mr. NAPIER feared that the bill, instead of furthering
the ends of justice, would tsmd to defeat them.
Mr. M'MAHON supported the bill.
Sir G. GREY said it was impossible to deny that the
change proposed by the hon. and learned gentleman in the
administration of the law was • very great and important
change. It was • subject well worthy the consideration of
the house, but he was confident it would be a most ha-
melons experiment, and that the adoption of the bill would
tend to impair the efficiency of the administration of justice.
After a few words from Mr. GEORGE,
Mr. I. BUTT said after the speech of the right hon.
baronet, he should not trouble the house with dividing on
the bill. His motion fo: referring the hill to a select own-
inittee was nothing but another mode of conducting the in-
quiry suggested by the right hon. baronet.
The motion that the hill be read • second time was then
negatived, and the amendment that the bill be read •
second time that day Me months was carried.