The Sun.
London, England, 1848-07-14 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF LORDS, July 13.
Their Lordships met at Five o'clock.
PROTECTION OF FEMALES BILL.

Lord BROUGHAM laid on the table a Bill for the
prevention of seduction, which was not exposed to the
objections which had been brought against the Bill of
the Right Rev. Prelate the Bishop of Oxford.
Lord CAMPBELL thought it was impossible the
Bill could pass this session, and would suggest its post-
ponement. _ _

After a few words from Lord DENMAN, the Bill
was read a first time, and the second reading was fixed
for Tuesday next.
INDEPENDENCE OF PARLIAMENT BILL.

Lord BROUGHAM moved the second reading of the
Independence of Parliament Bill. The object of this
measure was to exclude insolvent debtors from Parlia-
ment, in the same manner as bankrupts were ex-
cluded. As the law now stood, law-makers were
law-breakers, and brought sc•sndal on the House to
which they belonged. He would, however, if he could
get an assurance from the Government that they would
take up the question next session, withdraw his motion.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE was understood to
approve of the principle of the Bill, but to recommend its
postponement.
Lord BROUGHAM considered it better the measure
should originate in the House of Commons, and would
not therefore press his motion.
The Bill was then withdrawn.

CRIMINAL LAW ADMINISTRATION BILL.
Lord CAMPBELL moved that the House do resolve
itself into Committee on the Criminal Law Administra-
tion Bill. The Bill had been referred to a Select Com-
mittee, and the question bad been mooted as to whether
it would be advisable, in all criminal cases, to give the
party convicted a right to demand a new trial, and the
judges had unanimously decided that it would not be
advisable.

Lord DENMAN likewise bore testimony to the
unanimous opinion of the judges on the subject. He
also objected to giving a right of appeal from the judg-
ments of courts of quarter-sessions on points of
law, as was proposed by this Bill. It
would be attended with great inconvenience,
and would amount to a practical defeat of the adminis-
tration of justice. The judges were generally of opi-
nion that no practical good could arise from this appeal
to the judges on circuit, but that, on the other hand, it
would be attended with great disadvantage.
Lord BROUGHAM said it was a great mistake to
suppose that the same course could be pursued with
reference to appeals from courts of criminal judicature
as from civil courts. They must double the number of
judges, and make them sit in July as well as in Novem-
ber, if such a proposition were carried into effect; and
anything more wild, altogether, could not possibly have
been proposed. Ile thought nothing was snore unsatis-
factory than the manner in which points were now re-
served by judges and finally adjudicated upon. He con-
sidered that their judgments should be given in open
court; but still he could not approve of the present
measure as an effectual remedy for the existing evils
in the administration of the criminal law.

Lord CAMPBELL said that many difficult and im-
portant questions came before the courts of quarter-ses-
sions, and it was quite as important that appeals should
be allowed in such cases as in those tried before the su-
perior courts. It bad generally been considered one of
the defects of the courts of quarter-sessions that there
was no appeal. A judge could consult his learned
brethren upon a difficult point, but a chairman of quarter-
sessions had not that advantage. He did not think there
was any danger of the privilege of appeal from quarter-
sessions being abused.
The amendment was then agreed to, and the two
clauses accordingly struck out.
Their Lordships resumed, and the Bill as amended
was reported.
Their Lordships then adjourned.