The Sun.
London, England, 1870-03-30 00:00:00

SISTER.

Mr. M`LAREN presented a petition from the Free
Church of Scotland against this bill.
UNIVERSITY EDUCATION (IRELAND).

The O'CONOR DON moved for a copy of the declaration
of the Catholic laity of Ireland on the subject of Univer-
sity education in that country lately laid before the Prime
Minister.
The motion was agreed to.
ANNUITY TAX AMENDMENT BILL.

Mr. MIAREN gave notice that on the motion for the
second reading of this bill he should move thst it be read a
second time that day six months.

FELONY BILL.

Mr. C. FORTESCUE moved the second reading of this
bill, which was identically the same as that he
introduced in 1864. In that year the principle
of his bill was accepted, but a change of Govern-
ment took place, and on that acconnt the matter
was allowed to sleep until the year 1866, when Sir
R. Palmer, then Attorney-General, introduced a bill,
which provided that the property of felons should be
vested in curators during the sentence of a felon. He
was at the same time willing to accept that provision,
although it was not so liberal as his own, on account of its
laying down that the expenses should be deducted out of
the property so taken charge of. That measure, however,
did not receive the assent of Parliament, and from that
time as nothing had been done he thought it necessary for
him again to submit to Parliament the measure of 1864.
In no other country than England was the disposal of
property belonging to a felon prevented, even when
the capital sentence was inflicted. Although he knew
that the Crown was ready to hand over the pro-
perty to the nearest relative on proper representation
being made, he could not see the utility of maintaining a
law that was injudicious, and which always acted harshly
to those who unfortunately came under its provision. A
return had been made which shewed the small amount of
money that had been received by the country under the
law now in force ; and he thought the Chancellor of the
Exchequer would not object to the repeal of an Act which
produced so little. The law was opposed to recent legisla-
tion, and was condemned by all judicial authority. He
therefore asked the House to remove the remains of the
laws of a barbarous and feudal age.
Mr. 0. MORGAN did not oppose the motion, but he
thought the bill might .require amendment, not as to
touch the principle of the bill, which he admitted was quite
unsuited to the exigencies of modern society. He thought
that as the Crown did not exact forfeiture of the
property to all cases, on conviction of felony, was
a strong argument in favour of the passing of the bill.
He thought if they were to wait until the matter was
dealt with by some general measure they would have to
wait for a very long time, and therefore as half a loaf was
better than none, he should give the hon. member for
Walsall his hearty support.
Mr. JESSEL said he did not rise to oppose the motion,
although he should have rather the bill had
been brought in by the Government. He thought that
some modification of the present law was necessary,
but with respect to the principle of the bill there could be
two opinions. The forfeiture for felony and not for mis-
demeanour was most unequal and unfair, because in the
case of a man convicted of perjury, of a diabolical con-
spiracy, of a fraudulent concealment of goods, or a forgery
for a thousand pounds, that did not involve a

forfeiture of property of the person so convicted ;
but the boy who picked a pocket of a hand-
kerchief, on being convicted, forfeited everything he
had. A law that worked so unequally, he thought, re-
quired alteration, but instead of agreeing without reserve
to the bill of the hon member for Walsall, he thought it
would require alteration in its detail. Ho thought it
would be a wise provision to introduce a power into the
bill to revoke a pension on conviction for felony,
and also it would not be an unwise arrangement
to adopt a punishment known on the Continent,
which was that a person convicted of felony should lose
his right of citizenship and become ineligible from sitting
in Parliament or holding office under the Crown. There
were certain other matters of detail that he thought ought
to be dealt with, and therefore the best course to pursue
would be read the bill a second time and then refer it to a
select committee.

Mr. BRUCE said he did not rise to offer any opposition
to the second reading of the bill, but, on the contrary, he
desired, on the part of the Government, to give his hon.
friend the member for Walsall every facility in passing it.
He thought, however, after the suggestions that had been
made, his hon. friend would see the desirability of referring
the bill' to a select committee, which he did not think
would at all interfere with the passing of the measure, the
object of which was to abolish a law that appeared to him
to be indefensible, and it was a wonder that it had
remained unrepealed down to the present time.
Mr. C. FORSTER agreed to refer the bill to a select com-
mittee, and it was then read a second time.
PARTY PROCESSIONS (IRELAND) BILL.

Mr. W. JouNsToN moved the second reading of this
bill, the object of which was to repeal the Party Proces-
sions Act (Ireland). He denied that there was any desire
on the part of the loyal Orangemen of Ulster to offer
offence to their Roman Catholic fellow countrymen,
and he hoped that as there was a likelihood of Parliament
repealing the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, which had been
quite a dead letter, it would not refuse to give its assent
to the motion he submitted to the House. He thought that
all laws that could not be administered ought to be repealed,
He could not go the length*which Mr. Madden or which
the magistrates of Ireland who called upon the Govern-
ment to suppress party processions went, and with respect to
the recommendations of grand juries, he did not believe
they represented the feelings of the vast mass of the
population of Ireland, and in his opinion if they, in the
administration of their duty, left politics alone, they
would perform the proper functions more efficiently. He
asked nothing for the Orangemen of Ulster that he
could not concede to any other of her Majesty's subjects.
Ile-belieVed that the continuance of the act on the statute
book instead of diminishing Orange demonstrations would
tend to their increase. Unless the Act were repealed,
there would, he thought, be an exodus of the Orangemen
to a freer and hannier land. He did not say that the
Orange demonitrations were the means of keeping the
peace, but they certainly did not add to the crime and
outrage which unforturtunately charactised Ireland at the
present time. He represented many Roman Catholic gen-
tlemen, who were anxious to live in peace and amity
with their Protestant brethren, and he assured the House
that they were anxious that such aggravating and irrita-
ting enactments should be swept off the Statute Book.

Viscount CRICHTON did not believe that the spirit of a
2ommunity could be suppressed by penal enactments.
The bill was, after some further discussion, read a second
time.