The Sun.
London, England, 1864-06-16 00:00:00

EMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF COMMONS--Yesterday.
The SPEAKER took the chair at 12 o'clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The following bills were read a third time and passed
Bourton on 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), Southall' Railway, and
SJuth 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 9zh of June be read and
discharged, and that the bills be recommitted to the former
committee. lie 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 consideration laci 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 WHITESIDE opposed the motion, because 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.
Alter a long discussion the motion was agreed to.
GAOLS BILL.

In reply to Mr NEWDEGIATE,
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 Fa-
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 rep-al the ancient act whicn
condemned persons convicted of felony to entire forfeiture
of lands and goods. He said the time bad now arriv,d
when an alteration was most desirable of the nature he pr

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
which was of a nominal value, and was convictes. of felony,
all his furniture and property became forfeit to the Crown,
whilst in one of the worst cases of misdemeanour no
suth 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 Be wieke, and said such an occurrence
showed more clearly then he could dc, the actual necessity
for the bill.
Mr E WART reconded the motion.

Mr HUNT said the enacting part of the bill amounted

to three lines and a word, yet it proposed to repeal an act
which had been in existence for many centuries. Before
he assented to a second reading of a bill, he thought some
good reason should ba shown for its necessity, but in the
present case he felt bound to say that no such reason had
been submitted to the house by the hon. member who had
introduced the measure. He was not indisposed to assent
to some alteration of the law, but then what he wished
was that certain classes of misdemeanours should become

Halle to the forfeiture incurred for felony. Under all the
circumstances he thought himself quite justified in moving
that the bill be read a second 'Limo that day three months..
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought that what his
hon. friend intended by moving the second reading of the
present bill was 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 hands he would undertake that it should be
thoroughly examined and dealt with as a Government mea-
sure. He could not bind himself to go the length of sup-
porting the bill in its present form, but he would give his
vote for it on the clear understanding that it merely in-

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