The Sun.
London, England, 1864-06-15 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF COMMONS.--This Day.
The SIEIKER took the chair at 12 o'clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The following bills were read a third time and passed :
Bourton en the Water Railway, Brecon and Merthyr Tydfil
Junction Railway (No. 1), Dublin and Baltinglass Junction
Railway; Dublin, Rathmines, Rathgar, &0., Railways;
Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway (Blackburn, &c., Lines),
Lancashire Union Railways, Lynn and Sutton Bridge
Railway (Cross Keys Bridge), Southam Railway, and
South Eastern Railway (No. 4).
DUBLIN METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL.
Mr HERBERT moved, with respect to the Dublin
Metropolitan Railway Bill and the Dublin Railway Bill,
that the orders of the house of the 9th of June be read and
discharged, and that the bills bo recommitted to the former
committee. He also moved that the Dublin Trunk Con-
necting Railway Bill be also recommitted.
Mr H. BAILEY, the chairman of the committee, whose
decision was objected to by the hon. member opposite, said,
the utmost considnation had been given to the measures,
and he hoped the house would not adopt the unusual and
extraordinary course of reviewing its decision, bemuse the
committee had not considered itself justified in passing.
Mr P. O'BRIEN supported the motion.

Mr WHITES/DE opposed the motion, becauso the
measures reported against would, in order to give a central
station to Dublin, which was not wanted, cut up some of
the best and principal streets.
Ater a long discussion the motion was agreed to.
GAOLS BILL.

In reply to Mr NEwnEGATE,
Sir G, GREY said he hoped to be able to bring the bill
on for discussion on Monday next ; he also proposed to
take the committee on the Factory Act Extension on Fri-
day next at 12 o'clock.
FORFEITURE OF LANDS AND GOODS BILLS.
Mr. C. FOSTER moved the second reading of this bill,
the object of which was to repeal the ancient act which
condemned persons convicted of felony to entire forfeiture
of lands and goods. He said the time had now arrived
when an alteration was most desirable of the nature he pro-
posed, because, as the law really stood, the innocent were
frequently punished for the guilty. In convictions
for misdemeanour no such forfeiture was incurred, and to
prove the unfairness of the matter he would lengthen his
remarks by stating that, if a person stole a piece of coal
I which was of a nominal value, and was convicted of felony,
all his furniture and property became forfeit to the Crown,
whilst in one of the worst cases of misdemeanour no
such penalty was incurred, The law of course was evaded
by persons charged with felony making over their property
to a third person, but great and unjust loss was occasioned
by such a process, because he believed there were cases in
which an innocent person charged with felony having made
over his property before his trial which resulted in an ac-
quittal, the person to whom the property had been conveyed
actually set up a positive and undoubted right to the pos.
session of the property. The hon. gentleman then referred
to the case of Mr Bewicke, and said such an occurrence
shoved more clearly then he could dc, the actual necessity
for the bill.
rir B WART seconded the motion.'
Mr iIIUNT said the enacting part of the bill amounted
to three line.;‘ and a word, yet it proposed to repeal an act
which had been in existence for many centuries. Before
he assented to a sego.d reading of a bill, he thought some
L'een gulbmitted to the house by
good reason should be sla‘, wn for its necessity, but in the
~,,-esent case he felt bound le say that no such reason had
the hon .member who had
introduced 05 measure. He was not
indisposed to assent
to some alterationsof the law, but then
what he wished
was that certain classcs of misdemeanours 1:2 ould becom
liable to the forfeiture incurred for felony. Unt:er all the
circumstances he thought himself quite justified in Lloving
that the bill be read a second Jule that day three months-
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought that what hie
hon. friend intended by moving the second reading of the
present bill wad merely to affirm the principle that the pre-
sent law of forfeiture was such that it ought no longer to
be maintained, If the hon. gentleman would leave the
matter in his bands he would undertake that it should be
thoroughly examined and dealt with as a Governmentf
mea-
sure. He could not bind himself to go the length o sup-
porting the bill in its present form, butt wit
would give hisin
vote for it on the clear understanding that it merely
tended to affirm the principle of the bill.
Mr WHITESIDE said the law was founded on neither
reason nor humanity, and could not be defended on any
principle.
Mr. HADFIELD was of opinion that the law as it stoo
d
at the present moment was well calculated to perpetuate a
race of thieves. If you took away a convicted man's home
what was be to do when he came out of prison? No ono
would employ him, his home was gone, and what could he
do but go thieving again. The felon's children was rendered
homeless by their father's crime, and they were actually
driven to adopt a dishonest course of life.
Mr ROEBUCK was of 'opinion the rich were not kept
from committing felony by the fear of losing their property.
Loss of property therefore was no protection, and all they
did in-that direction was to inflict pain without securing any
corresponding benefit. He advised the hon members who
introduced the bill to hand it over the Government, who he
felt would deal with the matter in a propes spirit. In taking
it up he begged co impress on the Government that there
must be no trifling.
i Mr MALINS strongly supported the measure as one of

the most humane description. The old law had remained
in force too long. _ _

Sir G. GREY said his hon. and learned friend the Attor-
ney-General had most unequivocally promised to take up
this measure ; and therefore it was necessary that time
should be afforded to look into matters connected with the
subject, and also into the law of foreign countries.
Sir F. KELLY cordially supported the bill, and urged
the hon. gentleman to persevere with it, unless the Govern-
ment gave a promise to bring in a measure on the subject
during the present session.

The SPEAKER then put the question from the chair,
when the second reading of the bill was agreed to without
a division..

COSTS SECURITY BILL.

Mr. BUTT moved the sec'rnd reading of this bill, the
object of which was to repeal the necessity of Irishmen
residing in England giving security for costs in the event
of their unfortunately being driven into litigation. Par.
liamcnt had already affirmed the principle of the bill, and
he therefore hoped the house would agree to the second
reeding,

Mr WHITESIDE hoped the house would not assent to
the passing of the bill. If they allowed the Ell' to pass it
would enable an Irishman, who had neither money, charac-
ter, or case, to sue a gentleman resident in England. It
was only reasonable that before Irishmen, who were not al-
ways noted for length of purse or extent of possessions, com-
menced actions in this country, should lodge a certain sum
as security for costs, because in the event of a decision in
England against an Irishman, and vice ye? sa, that the
judge in whose court the case was heard had not the power
to inforce the judgment in Ireland.
The SOLICI [OR-GENERAL supported this bill.

- _
The house then divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading
Against it
Majority —3s
The bill was then read a second time. _