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

IMPERIAL 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 Baitinglass Junction
Railway; Dublin, Rathmines, Rathgar, &es., 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 METRO POLI TAN 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 9:h of June be read and
discharged, and that the bills be recommitteA 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 consideration had been given to the measures,
and he hoped the house would not adopt the unusual and
extraordinary course of reviewing its decision, because the
committee had not considered itself justified in passing.
Mr P. O'BRIEN supported the motion.
Mr WHITESIDE opposed the motion, becaus3 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.
Atter a long discussion the motion was agreed to,
GAOLS BILL.

In reply to Mr NEWDEGATE,
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 OP 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
which waa 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 petialty 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
showed more clearly then he could do, the actual necessity
for the bill.
Mr EWART seconded the motion.
Mr HUNT said the enacting part of the bill amounted

o 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
vod reason should be shown for its necessity, but in the
present care 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

liable to the forfeiture incurred for felony. Under all the
circumstances he thought himself quite justified in moving
that the bill be read a second time 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

principle.
Mr. HADFIELD was of opinion that the law as it stood
at the present moment was well calculated to perpetuate a
race of thieves. If you took away a convicted man's home
what was he to do when he came out of prison? No one
would employ him, his home was gone, and what could he
do but go thieving again. The felon's children were rendered
homeless by their father's crime, and they were actually
driven to adopt a dishonest course of life.
➢lr 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 member who

introduced the bill to hand it over to Government, who he

felt would deal with the matter in a proper spirit. In taking

it up he begged to impress on the Government that there
must be no trifling.
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-

merit 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..