The Sun.
London, England, 1853-06-01 00:00:00

PETITIONS.

Mr. H. W. WICKHAM presented a petition from
the operative tin-plate workers, Bradford, Yorkshire,
in favour of the Combination of Workmen's Bill.

Sir J. DUKE and several other hon. members pre-
sented petitions in favour of the Combination of Work-
men's Bill.

Alderman KERSHAW presented a petition from a
place in Lancashire against the Government Educational

Scheme.

NEW TRIAL (CRIMINAL CASES) BILL.

On the order of the day for the second reading of this

Mr. EWART presented a petition in its favour.
Mr. I. BUTT then proceeded to move that the bill
be read a second time, and in doing so the hon. and
learned gentleman entered into a detailed explanation
of the provisions of the measure. It was not easy, he
said, to exaggerate the importance of the bill. There
could be no doubt that the present state of the law was
productive of great inconvenience ; but before a bill of
this nature was passed, he apprehended it was the duty
of those who proposed it to show that it would not be
productive of still greater inconvenience in the adminis-
tration of the criminal law. The house was aware that
in civil matters the law gave parties the power of mov-
ing for a new trial, if they were dissatisfied with the
ruling of the judge or the finding of the jury, but except
upon points of law, there was no such power of revision
in criminal cases. It was right, however, that he should
state that in one case of felony of recent date, the Court
of Queen's Bench had granted a new trial, although all
the previous authorities were diametrically opposed to
such a proceeding. The law, as it was at present ad-
ministered, contained many anomalies. For instance, if
a man was tried upon a criminal charge in the Court of
Queen's Bench, or before a special jury in Middlesex, or
the city of London, he could appeal to the court above
, against the dictum of the judge or the finding of the jury ;
but there was no power of appeal in a case tried at the
Assizes, or before a recorder or petite jury. Now was it
strange that there should be the power of appeal in one
case and not in the other. We should have thought, if
any exception was to be made, it ought to be in favour
of the first and not of the latter case. Well, then, the
object in this bill was to remove the defect in the crimi-
nal law, and to give to the Court of Queen's Bench an
enlarged control over the proceedings of criminal cases,
no matter where they might have been tried. In mat-
ters connected with the record a power of appeal already
existed ; but the record was no more a reflex of the
merits of the case than were the minutes of the house

a record of the question debated last night. A judge
might admit improper evidence, but the record
would take no notice of that, because the re-
cord was prepared before their trial ; and the
principal object of this bill was to give a power
of appeal in cases where evidence might have been
erroneously admitted, or the decision of the jury was
opposed to the facts. Observe, the bill introduced no
new principle into the law, because upon points of law
the judge who tried a criminal already had the power of
reserving matters for a decision of the court above ; but
this bill proposed to give a power of appeal in the cases
he had stated without the consent of the presiding
judge. He had the greatest possible objection to
leaving the right of appeal to the decision of
the judge. He thought it ought to be an
absolute right without any limitation whatever,
and since this power of appeal had made the English
law what it was, he hoped the house would find
no difficulty in adopting this measure. He need not
cite cases where erroneous convictions had taken place,
they must be familiar to all who heard him, but he
must remind the house that in several cases parties had
lost their lives through the erroneous finding of juries,
which could not have happened had the provisions of
this bill been in force as law. Now, why should not
a man, on his trial for life, have the same protec-
tion of appeal as he had in a evil action ? (Hear.)
He could see no reason whatever against it, and there-
fore he had proposed this power of appeal with proper
machinery for carrying out speedily which would be found
fully explained in the language of the bill. If the house
admitted the principle of the bill, he should have no ob-
jection to refer it to the consideration of a select com-
mittee. (Cheers.)
Mr. EWART seconded the motion, and thought it

discrete to refer the bill to a select committee. As the
bill now stood it was only applicable to Ireland, but if
the second reading was carried, he should move that it
be an instruction to the committee to inquire into the
state of the law of England as well as Ireland. For his
part he thought the whole subject, and not the bill
alone, ought to be referred to a select committee, with
power of examining witnesses. The subject too of
appointing a public prosecutor ought to be referred
to a select committee, and when an occasion offered, he
should make a motion to that effect.
Mr. PHILLIMORE said it did not appear to him
that any good could result from the passing of this bill.
[LEFT SPEAKING.]