The Sun.
London, England, 1860-02-01 00:00:00

CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS.

Mr. E. JAMES gave notice that, on the motion for the
second reading of this bill, he would move an amendment,
to the effect that a committee be appointed to inquire into
the defects of the bill introduced last evening, as well as
the Petitions Inquiry Act.
APPEAL IN CRIMINAL CASES BILL.
Mr. M'MAHON, in moving the second reading of this
bill, said the measure was entirely free from those provisions
which were considered objectionable in the measure which
he introduced last session; therefore he trusted it would
not encounter say opposition. His bill was intended to
remedy an anomaly in the existing state of the law. In
civil actions a suitor in a matter where perhaps only 110 or
£2O formed the subject of the action might have a new trisl,
but in cases where greater stakes, even life itself, were at
issue there was no appeal from the finding of a jury.
The consequence was that a man who was tried for an
offence of the gravest character had no protection whatever
against the caprice of a judge or the ignorance of a jury,
but an appeal to the Home Secretary. Every one who had
paid attention to the subject and was competent to express
an opinion had decided that that was an anomaly that should
not be suffered to exist any longer. Having cited the autho-
rity of Lord Campbell and the late Lord Denman, he said
it had been proved that ono-sixth of the whole cases in
civil actions there was an appeal, and the verdicts were set
aside on the ground of the wrong finding of the jury or the
misdirection of the judge. Chief Baron Pollock was exa-
mined before the committee on criminal law in 1835, and
expressed his opinion that a motion for a new trial was
as essential in criminal, as well as in civil eases. In France,
when the judge considered that the finding of a jury was at
variance with evidunee, he bad the power to order a new
trial before a new jury, and in America the right of ap-
peal also existed. The commission which inquired into
this subject heed also considered that the right
of appeal was one that should be exercised, and he
was acquainted with a case that had recently occurred at
Hereford, in whisk a learned judge refused to receive the
verdict of a jury. In former times, the right of appeal
existed in this country, and when they were rendering the
criminal law more humane every day, was it just they should
retain a practice that was unjust towards a criminal and
opposed to the opinion of some of the most eminent jurists of
every country. His bill, therefore, merely proposed to as-
similate the law with that of France and America, and to
revive the former usage which prevailed in this country.
Mr. W. E WART seconded the motion but suggested,
with a view to prevent opposition, that the bill should be
referred to a select committee.

Sir G. C. LEWIS said that the bill would not
materially alter the prerogative of the Crown, and if
carried in its present form would not effect any practical
benefit. He contended all authority was against the hon.
and learned gentleman, and referred to the committee of
the House of Lords in 1848 in support of his opinion. Lords
Brougham, Denman, and Lyndhurst were in favour of the
view taken by Baron Parke and Baron Alderson, namely,
that there should be no alteration in the law in this coun-
try with respect to criminal appeal. Several other distin-
guished judges held the same opinion, and he believed that
only two witnesses, including Sir F. Kelly differed from their
views. In very few countries was there any trial by jury,
and referring to theme States of Europe in which the right
of appeal existed, he said that in Belgium that right was
allowed only in three cases, where a person had been con-
victed twice of the same offence, where perjury was committed,
or when the party who was supposed to have been mur-
dered was found to be alive. (Laughter.) There was
nothing in the case of Dr. Smethurst—there was nothing
whatever that justified an alteration in the present law.
He had paid careful attention to the facts connected
with that person's trial, and his recommendation to her
Majesty to exercise the royal prerogative in his be-
kalf was not founded upon facts, but solely in
consequence of the medical testimony adduced at
that trial. Unfortunately, raedieal science was in that
state with reference to poisons, that led to difference of
opinion with regard to the deductions that were to be made
from the medical testimony at that trial. lie believed the
bill would produce several evils of a very serious
character. In the first place, there would be delay
and ineertainty of the administration of the law, and
punishment to be effective must be speedy and certain, and
it would be productive of considerable expense to the ooun-
try. In proof of the last evil, he thought hon. members
must at once perceive its force, because, if they granted a
right of appeal in every case of conviction, they must sup-
ply the party convicted with the means of making an ap-
peal, which must be imposed on the county rates, or on
some branch of revenue in that house. It should also be
borne in mind that the appeal to the Home-office was direct,
rapid, inexpensive, and unincumbered with official forms.
He concluded by moving that the bill be read a second time
that day six months.
Mr. DENMAN bore his testimony, as a session barrister,
to the general correctness of verdicts of juries in criminal
cases. He had considerable experience, and only in one in-
stance did he feel justified in questioning the justice of a
verdict, which, however, from an observation of the
prisoner afterwards he was satisfied was perfectly correct.
lie thought the provision of the bill, by which the expense
of an appeal was to be borne by the prisoner, was fatal to
it, and rendered it, in fact, only a measure for the rich, not
for the poor. On the other hand, if the country
were to defray that expense, it would place the
person convicted in a better position than the
person acquitted, which he maintained was clearly unjust.
tlowever, he was by no means satisfied with the present
state of the law, and would have supported a motion for a
committee to inquire into the subject if the question had
been brought before the house in that form.
Mr. PHILIPS supported the amendment.
Mr. E. JAMES followed on the same side, and contended
that the machinery of the bill would not effect the object
contemplated. It would also impose on the Court of
Queen's Bench an amount of business that it could not
discharge ; and he complained of the present Court
of Criminal Appeal being entirely ignored by the measure
He thought perhaps that thoy might commence with ex-
tending the right of appeal to cases of capital conviction.
The subject should be dealt with in a comprehensive spirit,
and an ill-considered measure would do more injury than
benefit.

Mr. GEORGE supported the amendment.
After some further discussion, in which Mr. Mellor, Mr.
llonley, and the Solicitor-General opposed the bill,
Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR expressed his regret he did
not agree with all the provisions of the bill, but he thought
the Government should have given some promise that a
measure on the subject would be introduced. (Hoar,
hear.) Speaking from his own experience, and
from all he! had heard, he had the greatest confidence in
the mode in which the Home-office exercised its preroga-
tive of mere y.

Mr. LONGFIELD suggested that the bill should be re-
ferred to a select committee, and advocated the formation
of a tribunal to revise verdicts involving forfeiture of pro-
perty or life. lie concluded by calling on the hon. member
to withdraw the measure, considering the opposition with
which it had been received.

Mr. 24‘MAIION replied, and said he would not press
the house to divide.

The motion for the second reading of the bill was nega-
tived without a division.
QUALIFICATION FOR OFFICES ABOLITION

BILL.

After a short discussion, the debate on the second read-
ng of this bill was adjourned till the 29th inst.
SUPPLY."'

The house then went into committee of supply.
Mr. LAING moved that a sum not exceeding £13,230,000
be granted to her Majesty, to pay off and discharge Ex-
chequer Bills charged on the aids of 1860, unprovided for.
The vote was agreed to, and the house resumed.
ST. MARY RYDAL (MARRIAGES VALIDITY)
BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
CALAIS NIGHT MAIL.
Mr. LYGON moved for a copy of he contract recently
entered into for the acceleration of the night mail to Calais.
—Ordered.
The house adjourned at half past five o'clock.