The Sun.
London, England, 1861-05-15 00:00:00

NEW TRIAL IN CRIMINAL CASES.

Mr. BUTT rose to move the second reading of this
bill, the object of which was to enable a review being taken
of erroneous verdicts in criminal cases. In 1844, Sir F.
Kelly, following the footsteps of an eminent legal autho-
rity, introduced a bill for the above purpose, but the con-
sideration of the bill was delayed until the year 1858,
when he introduced the bill again, and its principles were
affirmed by a considerable majority. It had been objected
to by many to allow appeals from decisions of the Court
of Queen's Bench in criminal trials, but in certain
cases it had been found of great service. In cases of
misdemeanour an appeal was allowed, but in felony there
was no such right, and the reason why the distinction
was allowed was, that felony incurred, in the event of a
conviction, forfeiture of goods, so that a man charged with
the more serious offence did not possess the privilege en-
joyed by him who was convicted of a lesser offence. By
his bill he proposed to sweep away the distinction between
felony and misdemeanour, and giving the man tried
in the Court of Queen's Bench for felony the
same right as that possessed by a man -con•
victed of the lesser offence ; and he further proposed to
extend the power of that court to bring criminal cases be-
fore them from other courts by a writ of certiorari. In
several instances the opinion of the judge went with the
verdict of the jury, yet in many cases it had been proved
that both judge and jury were wrong, and an innocent man
had been in many instances convicted of an offence he bad
never committed. He did not think a more glaring
want of the bill he at present had the honour
of moving the second reading existed than in
the case of Mr. Barber, the attorney, !whose case was
familiar to the house, from the fact that they had granted
him compensation. Then, again, he would instance the
ase of the Earl of Dundonald, the noble earl exerted him-
self to obtain a new trial, but was pertectly unable to do so.
If he had succeeded, he would not have gone down to the
grave with the sting of his trial rankling in his breast. It
was true the ultimate result was the triumph of the noble
and gallant earl over the aspersion of his enemies ;
but if the bill now before them had been law
at the time, much of the suffering of so gallant
a man would have been prevented. Dr. Smethurst's
case proved the necessity of the bill, and referring to
trials still more recent—that of Mr. Kirwan, in Ireland,
,and Mr. Hatch, in Westminster Hall—showed the great,
necessity there was for the passing of the bill. The bon
gentlemen then proceeded to point out several cases which
had occurred in Ireland showing the necessity of his measure,
and instanced a case of a man convicted of murder. Before
sentence was passed he was asked in the usual form why he
should not suffer the penalty of the law. If he had said the
witnesses had sworn falsely against him, he was told that
was no answer in point of law. If he said to the judge you
have ruled a point of law wrong; that was no answer in
point of law ; but if he said the clerk had
committed an error in drawing up the indictment,
and it turned out to be one of the most trivial nature, then
he hild sufficient to arrest the passing of the sentence. He
knew he shoull be asked if he proposed to give appeals in
acquittals as well as convictions, but as he did not do so
in this bill, he felt there would be some objection, and he
trusted the House would read the bill a second time.
Sir. G. C. LEWIS said this was another instance of
Wednesday inflictions. Last session the House had in a
very marked way rejected a bill, which was precisely
similar in its enactments. He did not think that anything
had occurred since that time to show that the bill was re-
quired. Did the hon. gentleman think it was a common
occurrence for the innocent man to be found guilty in this
country ? (Hear, hear, from Mr. Butt.) If the hou. gen-
tleman meant by his cheer to infer that it was so, he (Sir
G. Lewis) felt a strong conviction, in which he was sup-
ported by the learned judges of the land, that such a cir-
cumstance was of very rare occurrence. He thought the
bill would be a mockery to man in prison in
saying to him you can appeal against your
sentence, because it would be entirely useless to give the
privilege without you made some provision for the pay-
ment of the costs. He did not think the case of Dr. Smethurst
afferded the slightest argument in favour of this bill, which
sought to enact that appeals be given to certain criminal
cases. The real ground of uncertainty in Dr. Smethurst's
case was the fallibility of the scientific evidence. Then,
again, Mr. Hatch's case did not afford the hon. gentleman
any stronger argument in his favour.
[LEFT SPEAKING.]

THE WEATHEE.

METEOROLOGICAL REPORTS.

This Day,
Letween 8 and B. E. M. D. F. C. L S.
9 a.m.
Nairn 3012 55 52 I S.W. 5 9 c. 4
Aberdeen 30.25 49 48 S.W. 1 5 c. 1
Leith 3012 57 53 W. 3 8 0. 2
Berwick 3030 53 s') W. 3 4 c. 1
Ardros san
Portru sh 30'36 56 55 W. S. W. 3 3 b. 3
Shields
Galway 3O 44 00 59 W. 1 9 0. 1
Scarborough 30'38 53 51 W.S.W. 2 1 b. 3
Liverpool 3014 50 49 S. 1 5 f. 1
Valentia
Queenstown 30'42 58 57 S.S.W. 1 5 o. 1
Yarmouth 3OlO 53 52 1 b. 2
London 3038 56 53 N.W. 1 3 b.
Dover 30.38 58 56 S.W. 1 2 b. 1
Portsmouth 30.38 56 53 N.W. 3 6 0. 1
Portland
Plymouth .
Penzance 3015 55 54 S.W. 1 9 0. 2
Jersey