The Sun.
London, England, 1854-03-07 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE 'OF
,LORDI-akiiiTETADAY.)

The LORD CHANCELLOR took his •seal. on the woo,
sack at 5 o'clock.
The Earl of HARROWBY gave notice of his inten-
tion on an early day to call attention to
,the proceedings
of the Sanitary Commission, particularly as regarded
the metropolis.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY gave notice that on
Friday he would move for the continuation of the papers
in reference to the religious disabilities of the Christian
suhjects of the Sultan. .
The Earl of HARDWICKE drt.ew attention to the
imperfect ventilation ofthe house, and expressed a hope
that some steps would Be taken to remedy the detect.
(At this time the house was so completely filled with
fog that it was difficult to distinguish many of the peers
present.)

The Marquis of BREADALBANE presented several
petitions from Scotland against the endowment of the
College of Maynooth.

' CONSOLIDATION OF THE CRIMINAL LAW.
Lord ST. LEONA.RDS, in rising to ask what were
the intentions of the Government with respect to the
bills for the consolidation of the criminal law, took occa-
sion to trace the history of the -various efforts which had
been made to deal with this important subject. He said
that the first commission which was issued for this pur-
pose originated in 1831, with instructions to the com-
missioners to inquire and report whether it was ex-
pedient that the statute and the common unwritten
law relating to criminal offences should be consoli-
dated. The commissioners reported that such a consoli-
dation would be extremely, beneficial. Lord Melbourne,
then Secretary of State; authorised the commission-
ers to proceed with their labours. And, in pursuance
of the duty imposed upon them, the commissioners
did digest the statutes and the unwritten law, and
one relating to criminal
turned
n 1835
intoth acts of
eyformedpatwrloiament". digests, which might be readily
offences and their punishment, and the other refating to
procedure. In the same year another set of commissioners
was appointed, and the result of their labours was that
about the year 1847 a bill was prepared for consolidating
the statutes relating to offences against the person. Mat-
ters thus rested until Lord Brougham again brought the•
subject before the house in the shape of a couple of bills,
which were ultimately 'withdrawn in order to have the'
opinion of the judges upon the desirability of the
changes proposed. He (Lord St. Leonards) being of
opinion that it was, quite possible to codify the law
without issuing another commission, had introduced a bill
with that object. The bill was read a second time and
referred to a select committee, where, after long and
patient investigation, it was agreed to. As chairman of
the committee he enclosed the bill to the judges, asking'
them to read and favour him with their opinion upon it ;
and it would be in the recollection of the house that in
the commencement of the present session he had com-
municated to them that the result of those "answers was
that it would not be desirable to make a formal code of
the • written and unwritten law relating to -criminal
offences. He wished, therefore, to know what her Ma-
jesty's Government proppsed to do with regard to the
Criminal Laiv Amendment and Consolidation Bill.
• The LORD CHANCELLOR admitted the difficulties
which beset the subject, but he considered that before
the bill was abandoned they should have a selectcorn-
reittee to reconsider it, with the judges' opinions and
their report upon it to the house. If it was the opinion
of such a committee that it was idle to proceed, he could
only say that they had done the best they could, and
that it would turn out impracticable. He feared that
that they had abandoned it only because it was found
such would be the result, but he did sot like to abandon
the attempt to legislate upon a subject which had occu-
pied the attention of the public for more than twenty ,
years, without making a final inquiry as to whether the
circumstances would justify such a course. His inten-
tion, therefore, with respect to the bill, was to move
that the bill wi.th the judges' opinions should be referred
to a select committee, who should report upon the sub-
ject to the house.

Lord BROUGHAM could not but express regret at
the course which he saw was likely to be adopted
upon this question. He pointed out the several
decisions in favour of a codification of the criminal
law at which the house had already arrived, and
contended that the mere opinions of the judges
ought not to nullify all the testimony which had been
collected •on the other— side. Upon most subjects
touching the administration of the law in any given
case and to any given facts, and touching the rights
of parties according to that law, he should bow to
the decision of the judges with implicit deference,
but it was ,a, very different thing when they went
out of their province, and when they entered upon
that of legislation, and gave their opinions as to what
the law ought to be, and what changes would make it
better and what changes would make it worscwile had_not:thereame respect for these reiirlerpersonsr: 'When
helooked back to not a very short life of legislation, and
when he reflected on the various measures that he had
at different times promoted in both Houses of Parlia-
ment, and many of which were now, as he thought hap-
apmilye,npdasmseendt
of theheintolawl,aw which h
did not
had
dect
at
inanvyarbilnls timesforthe
introduced into, Parliament that had received the coun-
tenance of the heads of the profession of the law, and
that had not rather met with their very decided, though
not always very loud, disapProval. He saw, with feel-
ings of regret, that the people of this country were likely
to have taken from them, just as they fancied they held
them in their grasp; the inestimable advantages which
would arise from a codification of the criminal law. He
could not • agree with, the opinion of the judges,
and he did not think, after the repeated testimony of
commission after commission, that they should give up
the idea of a consolidation of the law. He believed that
every one of the judges disapproved of the changes which
he effected in the bankrupt law in 1831. He, believed
that only two of them could bear to hear mentioned his
Evidence Bill, for allowing parties to cases to be exa-
mined. All the judges, with the exception of one, were
against that measure, and only two treated it with any
degree of toleration. With reference to the objections
which had been raised as to the difficulty of defining
offences, one noble and learned lord said he preferred the
common law definition of larceny to the statute one.
He (Lord Brougham) should like to know what the
fifteen common-law judges would say the common-law
definition of that offence was. He was sure, if they had
no communication together before the answer was given,
they should have from them fifteen definitions, each one
widely differing from the others of what the law meant
by larceny.
The LORD CHANCELLOR announced his inten-
tion this session to introduce a procedure act, and the
house adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—(YESTERDAY.)
The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock.
SECOND' READINGS.
The Great North of Scotland Railway Bill, and the
Stamford and Kettering Road Bill, were read a second
time.

On • the Motion that the Kensington 'lmprovement
Bill be read a second time,
Mr. RICARDO moved that the bill be read a second
time that day six months.

Mr. BOUVERIE thought it would be very dangerous
to accede to the second reading of the bill.
Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR said the objections stated
wainst the bill had no real foundation, and he thought,
as the inhabitants of Brompton were in favour of the
bill, it ought to be now read'a second time and sent to
a committee.

Lord R. GROSVENOR thought, as no principle of
public law was infringed by this bill, the house ought
not to refuse the bill going through a second reading.
The house then divided on the question, when there
appeared—, .
For the second reading .................. 53
..
For the amendment . . ................. 158
Majority against second reading... —lO5
So the bill was lost.

Mr. FORTESCUE, the new member for Louth, took
,he oaths and his seat.

M.r. OLIVEIRA. presented a petition from Inverness,
very numerously signed, in favour of a reduction of the
duties on foreign wines. . •

Sir J. SHELLEY presented a petition from West-
minster, praying for a reduction of the duties on post
carriages and horses.
Lord D. STUART presented petitions with a similar
prayer from the inhabitants of St. Pancras and Oxford-
street.

General BUCKLEY presented petitions from differ-
ent places in Wales, praying for the closing of beer-
shops on the Lord's-day.
Sir B. HALL presented a petition from Marylebone
against the Poor. Removal Bill.