The Sun.
London, England, 1860-06-12 00:00:00

said it was now proposed by these bills to amend the law
both as it regarded England and Ireland, and the framers of
the measures with that view had taken into consideration
thy population and circumstances of both countries. The
hon. and lefirned gentleman then referred to the various
acts of Parliament which had been passed since tho year
1832 for the amendment and improvement of the criminal
law, and after giving a history of the various commissions
which had been issued for the purpose of making further
inquiries into the operation of the criminal law, said that it
had been the intention and effort of the commissioners to
incvrporate into these bills all that was desired by the right
hon. gentleman the member for the University of Dublin,
who had paid great attention to this matter. If it should
be found that the bills did not contain everything that was
material to render them perfect, still he hoped objections
would not be interposed which might have the effect of de-
laying the passing of them this session, a matter which it
was desirable should be accomplished after the various ex-
periments which had been made, and the long labours which
had been spent upon them. The hon. and learned' gentle-
man concluded by moving the second reading of the bill.
Mr. WHITESIDE having complimented the Solicitor-
G eneral on the lucid history ho had given of the successive
steps that had been taken in the improvement of the
criminal law, proceeded to complain that amongst the pre-
sent measures the punishment and procedure bills had been
withdrawn. The next point to which he wished to allude
was the provision against the conspiracy to murder. He
thought it had been settled that the punishment of death
was to be taken away from every crime except the actual
taking of human life, but here he found it reserved for con-
spiracy to murder and for various other offences. He sub-
mitted whether secondary punishments should not be sub-
stituted in cases where death did not ensue. He objected
also that their former definitions of murder were omitted,
but he had no hesitation in saying that, subject to the im-
provements which might be made in committee, it might
be expedient to pass these bills. On the question of mercy
he thought that a conference with the Lords might smooth
away every difficulty. Even if the noble viscount did not
carry the Reform Bill, he would in passing these bills have
the satisfaction of passing measures which were really use-
ful to the country.

Mr. COLLIER was willing to accept these bills, and
would give his best assistance towards improving them in
committee.
Mr. M'MAHON thought there were good reasons why
this bill should be referred to a select committee. A' great
deal of money had been expended on this and other similar
bills. He had looked through these bills, and he thought
he could satisfy the house that it would be a very serious
thing to give them a second reading. By one provision of
the present bill the definition of murder or manslaughter
extended to killing any person, whether he was a subject of '
her Majesty or not. If the house adopted that clause, then it
followed that killing a person abroad—a foreigner—not in
the dominions of her Majesty would be murder. Now, there
was an English captain at present joined with Garibaldi,
and if he should be taken prisoner he must be sent ever
here, and this country would be asked to find a bill against
him at the Old Bailey, and we should be called upon
to hang him. There was another case. It was said
that a great number of his (Mr. 111‘Mahon's) country..
men were going to some part of Italy, who might have
to fight against the King of Sardinia ; and sup-
pose some portion, of them were taken, they must be
sent over here. They would thus be dealing with persons
who were not subjects of the Queen, and it would be the
whole story of the Conspiracy to Murder Bill over again,
and they would be continually troubled with prosecutions
of that kind. There was a clause also in the bill which re-
cognised an offence hitherto utterly unknown to the law.
That clause related to a person levying a distress commit-
ting an assault upon whom constituted a criminal offence,
and the offender would be tried at quarter sessions, at which
some of the nicest points of law would have to be argued.
He would call the attention of tho house to another very
strong violation of settled principles. In the Coinage Bill
there was a provision that in all cases of prosecutions under
that bill, the Solicitor to the Mintlwas instructed to see
that all the expenses should be borne the same as for felo-
nies, which violated every rule that had hitherto prevailed
in criminal proceedings. He trusted, therefore, that the
house would safely consider that the safer course would be
to refer those bills to a select committee, which would be
able to consider not only these bills, but those which the
late Attorney-General for Ireland brought before the house.
Mr. AYRTON complained that there was no key to the
manner in which these bills had been prepared, and it was
impossible to know what parts of the bills were amendments
of the law, and what were parts of the law as it now existed.
They were endeavouring to consolidate the law, and yet in
these bills there was a considerable repetition of various
clauses in the existing statutes. They should have before
the house, in one form or other, a statement of the existing
state of the law as applicable to those proceedings, so that
as they went through the bills in committee they should be
able to form an opinion upon the subject.
Mr. W. EWART thought that in many cases the cer-
tainty,of punishment would be secured by giving a smaller
punishment than was now often awarded for offences. He
was glad to see the Government were taking a step in ad-
vance on this important subject.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that after tne dis-
cussion which had taken place, It would not be necessary
for him to do mere than to give an assurance to the house
that these bills would be vigorously and earnestly proceeded
with. (Hear, hear.)
The bill was then read a second time.
The Malicious Injuries to Property Bill was read a second

time.
The Coinages Offences Bill was read a second time.
The Accessories! and Abettors Bill was read a second

time.

The Forgery Bill was read a second time.
The Larceny, &c., Bill was read a second time.
The Criminal Statutes Repeal Bill was read a second
time.
The Highways, Roads, &c., Bill was read a second time.
ADMIRALTY COURT JURISDICTION BILL.
On the motion of Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR this bill, which
stood for a second reading, was withdrawn, and leave was
given to introduce another bill in its stead.
The Tithe Commutation Bill was read a second time.
The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) (No. 2) Bill was
read a second time.
The Caledonian and Crinan Canal Bill was read a second
time.

TENURE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LAND
(IRELAND) BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
After a long and stormy discussion, it was agreed that
the bill should be committed on the evening of Friday next,
with the understanding that if the house could not proceed
with it on that evening, it should stand for 12 o'clock on
Tuesday week.
The Masters and Operatives Bill was read a third time and
passed.

The Councillors of Burghs and Burgesses (Scotland)
Bill passed through committee.
The Leasing and Improving Lands (Ireland) Bill was
read a second time.