The Express.
London, England, 1858-07-08 00:00:00

CO* exprsoo.

Oberembrals Mir;dad ter The B;anes."..arim.
fwd IrishMd
Mbe el OW Oft* 111, lbernertertmer. by Tim Mei ma ibir
ebllledsa.

Toe Ilmois. TIM At or WATllL—Tlasior=ll4ol,loll.
lfie. Tesse.-00X asp COL Itimats.
&ad TES OLLIOLUI INT/I.—Oammisagf.

rim Erasure DYING SOSIIIM—Aades. !p raace~lrt
OP VIIINIOII. Nr. ra

110311.11 T.
Tan Won's. TH3 013111 301111111 lama P. Isdk/4
••4 11•1•••1; Modem, HANK •14•Dgisrlfo
MINCH ULDTV HAAD. XL& • 11=e
13000a—Ommensesi 1.

NIGH WATS!' AT LONDON BRIDCHL
raust=ii.s.gre. 111. Allay. in. pa
111. • a... —.....Ailessah Tea.

LONDON, THURSDAY, JULY 8.

SPORTING INTELLIGENCE.

A SPECIAL EDITION of the "EXPRESS,"
eontaining the result/1 of the day's Races, is pub-
lished every evening daring the Sporting Sewn, at
six o'clock.

IT is one of the most glaring anomalies in the
administration of English law, that while in Civil
cases there is a power of appeal more liberal sad
extended than exists elsewhere, there is in Criminal
cases no substantial power of appeal at all. There is,
indeed, what is called a Court of Criminal Appeal,
bat it cannot be too generally understood aimi the
only grounds on which an appeal can be entertained
in that Court are technical errors in the formal
statement of the prisoner's offence, or a failure in
the proof to satisfy the strict exigencies of legal defi-
nition. If the Judge has laid down the law incor-
rectly; if he has misled the jury in commenting on the
evidence or stating its effect ; if the evidence in itself
be defective; or if evidence existed which might have
been adduced, but was not, and which, if adduced,
would materially have altered the whole complexion
of the case—in none of these ,instances can the pri-
soner claim the right to have the sentence pro-
nounced against him reviewed by a Court of Appeal.
It is only where the technical description of the
offence is alleged to be insufficient, or where some
doubt is fklt whether the evidence adduced sustains
the precise charge laid in the indictment, that the
existing Court of Criminal Appeal can be re-
sorted to ; and even to this imperfect extent
it can only be set in motion when the
Judge or Magistrate before whom the trial has
been bad, sees fit to draw up a statement of the
case, and so raise the point in dispute for the con-
sideration et the higher tribunal. On the other
hand, in Civil cases, the right of appeal is enjoyed to
a latitude that may almost be deemed excessive. A
plaintiff or defendant who loses a snit involving any
money claim, or affecting any right of property, how-
ever trifling, may move for • new trial before the
fell Court in Banc; if still dissatisfied, he may fur-
ther appeal to the Exchequer Chamber; and thence,
in the last resort, betake himself to the
final and conclusive judgment of the Home
of Lords. Can anything be more preposterous
than this ? three stages of appeal in oases involv-
ing the settlement of a disputed account, and ao
right of appeal whatever in cases involving tie
lames of life or death : an appeal conceded in cri-
minal cases; where a doubt is felt, whether all the
formal ingredients of the legal definition of • given
offence are set forth in the indictment, or substan-
tiated in the evidence ; but no appeal allowed where
there ampere doubts whether the law has not been
incorrectly expounded by the Judge, or whether
material evidence has not been kept back from, or
misunderstood by, the Jury.

Nothing bat the iaveterate dominion of early
sessektism sod professional prejudice:can possibly
aoseant hr the feet that humane and intelligent
MS ma maul these shocking anomalies without
Missal= mad divest "„ The Bill introduced yes-
timidity by Mr. M'Masou proposed to remove this
mesedidess seproseb on thejadministration of our
Criminal law, by providing that a new trial should be
had in Criminal cases wherever there was reasonable
ground to suppose that a mistake on the part of
ledge or Jury had led to a wrong conviction. The
principle of the Bill, it is satisfactory to
observe, was affirmed by a majority of 64
—the second reading having been carried by
146 to 91. The framer of the Bill appears, however,
to have been so sensible of the defectiveness of its
details, that he remained content with having pro-
cured the sanction of the House to its principle, and
the country must wait for yet another session before
this moat ui and necessary reform can take its place
an the Btatats•book.

The dismission, though on the whole Wider:tory,
did net pies by without the ventilation of a few of
those customary common-places of obetrection
which on all such occasions are inevitably paraded
by peeetieel objectors. Many of us can remember
how the same kind of stock fallacies were brought to
bear against the 8 ill for allowing Counsel to Prisoners
charged with felony The criminal business of the
country wield
judges wield have to be enormously increased—mai-
fast rogue would escape deserved conviction, to the
great detriment of the common wealth. Every 409 of
three confident predictions has been utterly labilled
by the result ; the taint of a great injustice haltillmo
removed from our criminal procedure withal
introduction of a single oounterbahmelmg OIL as
to the objection of more time and 111441010111104/t NA,
ought never to have been heard of sok after dra
crushing rejoinder it once received beat tlte great elk
of the whir. "If three hours,"exelaizie BrtmOt
Mama, " is necessary to establish a prinmeett feea *
eenap in a capital cue, and he is only slime ON
a for the purpose, the man is as much murdered al
" though be had him throat cut in open court. It Is
" rarely better for our Judges to be a little loner ea
" circuit, than to murder rapidly in ermine."
The evils canoed by the present state of
the law are no imaginary evils. Take two
instances which were referred to is yesterday's
debate. There is the cam of Mr. ll,taaza,
the solicitor, now under investigation by a
committee of inquiry, and that of Mr. Aucuxurr
GLOVER, in which a majority of the jay that OM-
victed hint only the other day published their
grounds their own verdict.
Under •
wer of aindial sp-
here bees appealed
7nder the existing

! I grounds for di;euting Front —tite
' Under a properly regulated power
'
1 'L peal both these verdicts might bar
from on motion fora new trial. Ur
lit
1 .
- lIIIIIAb