The Sun.
London, England, 1858-07-08 00:00:00

NEW TRIAL IN CRIMINAL CASES BILL,

Mr. M"2.1.A.110N moved the second reading. of this
bill, providing for new trials in cases where it was sup-
posed a mistake on the part of a judge or jury bad led
to a wrong conviction. He proposed that the appeal
should be to the Court of Queen's Bench.

Mr. WALPOLE said he would not oppose the se-
cond reading, but he thought the bill would require
very material alterations in Meta He must net b,
understood to be rep insible for the priucip:e of the
bil

Mr. J. D. FITZGERALD considered that it would
b 3 very unwise t allow the bill to be read a second
time.

Mr. MILES contended the bill was unnecersaiy He
moved. the second reading of the bill this day six
months.

Mr. ROEBUCK said that all human tribunals were
fallible, and, recoenisiug that fact, they allowed a man
in a civil case involving a few trumpery pounds to ap-
peal to the House of Lords, but in a criminal case,
where a man was tried for his life, there was but one
trial and no appeal. except a review of the case by Mr.
Waddington, the Home Secretary's secretary, sitting in
his back parlour. He supported the bill.
Mr. B. BLXCIDIORE opposed the bill. He ad-
mitted reform was necessary in our criminal laws.

Mr. LOWE considered the laws of this country gave
the guilty population enough loopholes of escape. He
objected to the passing of the bill. It they gave the
power of appeal to a man who could pay for it ; they
c uld not with propriety refuse it to a man who could
not pay, and the consequence would be that the country
would have to pay money to enable the criminal popu
lation of the country to endeavour to evade justice. He
had no doubt it would be a beneficial change for the
legal profession, but he hoped the house would not per-
mit such an inroad on the administration of justice.
He regretted the Home Secretary had given his assent
to the second reading of the bill.
Mr. DE VERE supported the bill.

Mr. EWARr said the appeal in criminal cases to the
Home Secretary was an appeal to a court behind a screen,
and ought to be abolished, and a proper c nut of appeal
established. He cordially supported the second reading
of the bill.
Mr. BRIGHT disaented from the remarks of the
right hon. gentleman the member for Kidderminster.
He condemned the system of review now acted upon,
and urged that it should be abolished. He was glad to
find the Home Secretary assented to the principle of the
bill, and he doubted if any gentleman who bad filled
that orrice wished the continuance of a system that
threw so much responsibility upon them, and in reference
to the question of life and death.
Sir J. TROLLOPE supported the second reading of
the bill. It would to satisfactory to all engaged iu the
administration cf criminal justice at quarter seasions
throughout the country to know that their decisions
were open to review or appeal.
Mr. GILPIN was in favour of the second reading of
the bill.

Mr. ADDAMS agreed with the principle of the bill,
and Fhoold vote for the second reading.
Mr. HENLEY was not oisposed to negative appeal in
criminal case,, but he objected to a man being tried a
second time for the same offince. Under the circuta
stances he should abstain front vutieg on the motion.
Mr. M'MAHON replied.
Mr. SPOONER, hoped the hop, member for Sumer-
setshire would withdraw his amendment. He objected
to the bi 1 because it gave a rich criminal the privilege of
appeal, but the poor man would be deprive i of it from
want of means. Another fault in the bill was, there was

no limit to the appeal. He should not vote ou the mo-
tion.

The house divided. The numbers were—
For the second reading
Against it

Majority
The bill was then read a second time.

On the qaestion that the bill be committed,
The ATrORNEY•GENERAL said he was in favour
of the principle of the btll. The details were, however,
objectionable, and be hoped the bi:l would not be pro-
ceeded further with this session. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. S. WORTLEY hoped the bill would be farther
proceeded with this session.
After some remarks from Mr. J. D. FiTznimten,
Mr. M`MAIION said he would consent to drop the
bill for the session, and expressed a hope that her Me-
jesty'e Government would assist him next session in
passing a similar bill.
After Kl_1(10 observations from Mr. ROEI3IICK,
Mr. WALPOLE declined giving a pledge to the effect
required by the hon. and learned member. He was fa-
vourable to the principle of the hill, but he objected
to its details. Appeal ought to be given under certain
restraints, but he objected to a man being tried a second
time for the same oflence.
Mr. Bouverie, Mr. Barrow, Mr. Butt, Mr. Labou-
chary, Mr. M‘Malion, and Captain Egerton addressed
the house on the question of the committal of the bill.
The house divided. The numbers were—
For the committal of the bid
Against it
Majority --17
The bill was then ordered to be committe I this day
three weeks—(laughter)—on the motion of
M'MAHON.

INSURANCE AND ASSURANCE INSTITUTIONS

BILL.

Mr. SHERIDAN moved the second reading of the
b:11, and in doing so entered into the details of the mea-
sure. Government had repeatedly promised to legislate
on this question, but had failed to fulfil there, and the
various companies despaired of anything being done
except by a private member, and for that reason he had
introduced the bill. He con4dered there wa4 ample
time this session to pass the bill. 'Though the bill con.
tained 195 clauses, there were only about 40 that woul I
cause discussieu. If her Majesty's Government would