The Sun.
London, England, 1859-07-01 00:00:00

upon that subject at thepresent moment. Events may occur
which may render it necessary that that session should be
held earlier than the accustomed period. There may be
considerations which may lead in the other direction, but
upon that point I beg the house to understand that we re-
serve it to ourselves to state at some future period of the

present session what our views and intentions may be. We
shall therefore proceed at once with the business which is
before us. Some of the estimates will have to be considered
and voted by the house. There will be the budget of my
right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be
stated and considered ; there may probably be measures

consequent upon that budget, and there may be other mea-
sures of minor importance which we may think it our duty
to propose ; but that amount of business will probably, I
think certainly occupy all the remaining portion of the
summer during which it is possible for us to expect such an

attendance of members as will, enable us to deliberate upon

measures of impatance. I will not trespass further on the
attention of the house except to say that, considering how
late the session is, and how important it is that the business
usually called the business of the Government, though
really the business of the country, should be proceeded with

as rapidly as possible, it is my intention to propose on a
future day that Thursdays, beginning with this day fort •
night, shall be Order days, instead of, as usual, being No-
tice days. That is an arrangement that is usually made
towards the latter part of the session; and I trust that,

under the circumstances, those who may have notices on
- •

the paper for this day fortnight will offer no opposition to
the proposal which I shall make. (Hear, hear.)

The motion was then agreed to.
THE NATIONAL DEFENCES.
Sir C. NAPIER said that he would not give his sup•
port to the Government unless he received from them a dis-
tinct statement as to what they proposed to do with refer •
ence to the national defences, which at present were not in
a state of efficiency. He advised the Government to follow
in the footsteps of the late Government, who were entitled
'to the gratitude of the country for their conduct in refer-
ence to this matter. He would not press the matter further,
but would on an early occasion draw the attention of the
Government to the subject.
Lord PALmEns•rox rose to reply, but,
The SPEAKER decided that the hon. and gallant mem-
ber was not in order, not having brought forward a motion.
The subject then dropped.
CONVENTION WITH THE KING OF PORTUGAL.
Lord J.:RUSSELL laid on the table a copy of this con-
vention.
CRIMINAL STATUTE LAW CONSOLIDATION.
Mr. WHITESIDE rose to move for leave to bring in a
bill to consolidate and amend the criminal statute law of
England and Ireland. The Statute Law Commissicnershad
given much attention to this subject, but in their delibera-
tions they found themselves involved in one or two diffi-
culties. The first of these was whether they should notonly
consolidate but also amend the law ; and the second was
whether their measures should or should not extend to Ire-
land. Now, he held that the difficulties would only be in-
creased by having one set of statutes for England and ano-
ther for Ireland. The late Lord Chancellor of Ireland, he
might observe, had given it distinctly as his opinion, that
there should b 3 one set of statutes for both countries. In a
communication addressed to the Secretary of the Statute
Law Commission he said:—
" I think the Irish statutes ought to be overhauled, with
the view of confolidating them as much as possible with the
corresponding English Acts. We have about 2,263 Irish
Acts before the Union • then under Poyning's Act (10
Henry VII., c. 22) we have: to import English Acts ; and by
the Bth Edward IV., cap. 1, and 21 and 22 George 111.,
cap. 48, English Acts are extended to Ireland. Since the
Union there have been passed about 1,300 statutes exclu-
sively relating to Ireland, so that, in addition to the early
and the Post-Union Laws which extend to both countries,
there are upwarda‘of 3,560 statutes peculiar to Ireland. I
believe it to be practicable to have one set of statutes for
both countries, which would regulate most matters proper
for legislation, though there are important exceptional sub-
dealtects which, on principles of sound policy, ought still to bo
with by special and separate legislation."
A paper was submitted to the late Cabinet for the purpose
of having the opinion of the Cabinet on the manner in which
the work should be effected. A right hon. friend of his had
an interview with the Cabinet and their assent was obtained
to the principle of the measures. First with regard to the
punishment of death. Blackstone enumerated 160 capital
felonies which were formerly visited withdeath. Finally the
punishment of death was reduced to 12 offences, and it was
for the late Cabinet to decide whether the punishment of
death should be abolished in the case of any, and which
of these offences. The result was that the late Cabinet
decided to propose the abolition of the punishment of
death in all cases save for the offences of treason and
murder.- Opportunities had arisen for the carrying out
of effective secondary punishment which did not
formerly exist—(hear, hear)—and from the time that
the Criminal Law Commissioners recommended the aboli-
tion of the punishment of death for the crime of rape it was
extremely difficult to maintain this punishment for any
offences against the person not accompanied by death. It
was proposed in the same bill to deal with the crime of con-
spiracy to murder. This offence was capital in Ireland and
not capital in England. He had been asked whether he
would not assimilate the laws of the two countries. Consi-
dering that Ireland had been handed over to the present
Government in a condition that it had never been in before
—in a state of great prosperity and profound tranquillity—
he was of opinion that in this particular instance, as in
several others, exceptional laws might be abolished, and he
therefore proposed by this bill to abolish the punishment of
death for the offence of conspiracy to murder. It was gene-
rally felt that when death did not result the criminal might
be allowed to get the benefit of not having carried his crime
into execution. Wherever the conspiracy to murder was
proved it would be in the power of. the judge to pass a
severe penalty, but he might, if he thought fit, reduce the
punishment to an imprisonment for four years. There was
the ease of a conspiracy to murder her Majesty's Ministers
at a dinner at Lord Harrowby's. No doubt, such a conspi-
racy might be a very gross offence, but the Crown was
more likely to gain a conviction when the punishment was
reasonable and moderate. The crime of forgery was conso-
lidated by the English statute law in the time of William
IV. In Ireland the laws relating to forgery had never been
consolidated, and there were now 45 acts of Parliament re-
lating to that crime. But, as the offence and the punish-
ment ought to be the same in England, Ireland, and Scot-
land, there was no real difficulty in amending the acts, in
applying the same law to both countries, and in clear-
ing the statute-book of forty or fifty acts of Parliament.
With regard to the Procedure Bill, if the crimes were
the same, to have two modes of procedure was very
unnecessary. All the procedure laws commencing with
those relating to the issuing of commissions to judges
from the time of King Edward the First to Queen
Victoria had been overhauled and systematised, and the
present would be a complete Procedure Bill for both coui-
tries. It would bo found to be a very readable Bill, but
there were only two clauses that deserved the attention of
the house. These were clauses six and seven, declaring
what was to be done in cases formerly punished by forfei-
ture of goods and chattels and confiscation of land. It was
said that confiscation of land was the corner-stone of the
classification of crimes by the law of England. When Sir
M. Hale wrote, almost every crime was a felony. But Mr.
Amos had published an interesting work entitled the " Ruins
of Time" to prove the ruins time had made in the composi-
tions of Sir M. Hale. While he admitted that the late
Cabinet did not decide in favour of the abolition of the for-
feiture of lands, and that confiscation should be abolished,
he in his individual character felt at liberty to urge the abo-
lition of this penalty. Take the case of Sir W. Raleigh.
The King first cut off his head and then took his estate for
his favourite. When Lady Raleigh asked for the restora-
tion of Sherborne Castle, the erudite Scotchman re-
plied, " I mun hae it for Carr," which being translated
meant, " I must have it for Kerr." (A laugh.) The law
ought to be satisfied with the life of the victim, w.:_hout
punishing his innocent family. He was present at the
trial of Mr. Smith O'Brien for treason. The Crown might
have taken his life, but on what prineiple of justice could
the law have taken his estate from his eldest son,—a man:of
the highest talent and every virtue? He admitted it might
be rejoined that confiscation was still the law of this coun-
try, but he had lately been reading the arguments urged
by Sir Samuel Romilly on this point, and they reminded
him of the conversation between the Emperor Joseph and
the Chancellor of the Austrian empire. The Emperor was
reported to have asked his Chancellor whether ho had read
the essay of Beccaria. "I have, Sire," was the reply.
"-Can you answer, it ?" "No, Sire." " Then act upon it,"
said the Emperor. Mr. Amos, in the book that he had
quoted, said,—
" On the general principle of confiscation it may be ob-
served that it is open to the gravest objections. Sir M.
Hale, indeed, does not offer any opinion concerning its im-
policy or inhumanity, and Blackstone labours to prove what
he terms the natural justice' of confiscation for treason.
The first pattern for confiscation is supposed to have been
given to the world by Sylla the Dictator. Among the prin-
cipal objections to confiscation may be reckoned that the
penalty is in many cases excessive and disproportioned to the
nature and extent of offences ; that it is unequal in its appli-
cation to different offenders, being graduated not according
to the gravity of an offence,' but the magnitude and descrip-
tion of the offender's estate ; that it usually involves the
misery and utter ruin of the innocent families of offenders.
Livingstone, Dumont, and Bentham have written cogently,
against forfeitures, but nowhere, perhaps, are they more elo-
quently reprobated than in the following extract from a
speech of Sir S. Romilly. Ho says :—' All confiscations
forming part of a sentence by which death is inflicted are
founded, in my opinion, upon the greatest injustice. To
confiscate the property of the criminal whose life is left un-
touched is to take from him the means by which the enjoy-
ments and comforts of life are supplied; but if the law de-
prives him of life also the forfeiture can only affect those
whom he leaves behind him. Upon them alone the punish-
ment falls, and, if the offender be at all affected by it, it is
only as he May feel and be afflicted for them. Almost all
punishments, indeed, extend beyond the criminal against
whom they are directed. The greatest criminals have often
deserving relations and connexions who sympathise in their
sufferings, and who, though perfectly innocent, thus endure
a part of the punishment; but this arises from the necessary
imperfections in all human institutions ; in the law, how-
ever, of forfeiture this, which is an unavoidable evil, but
which all wise legislatures would, if it were possible, avoid,
is the very principle upon which the law proceeds. The
direct punishment is inflicted on the innocent, and it is by
sympathy alone that the guilty is affected, if he be at all
affected by it. To the most obdurate and hardened it is no
punishment at all; to the less criminal—to those whose
minds are not callous to all sense of virtue and of humanity,
if to any, it can operate as a punishment. You choose for
the instrument of your moral tortures the best feelings of
the human heart, and aggravate and enhance, your punish-
ment in proportion as the subject of it is less an object of
detestation!"
Those were arguments which it was impossible to answer,
and, therefore, he now proposed to abolish the penalty of
confiscation of land for crimes to which it now applied.
What was the case in respect of felony ? There was an
instance of a man at Salisbury being convicted of felony
for stealing one penny, and all his goods were forfeited.
The bishop, however, claimed the chattels, and, being a
just man, he divided the property among the most deserv-
ing relatives. Thus, too, the Sovereign never actually took
the produce of a felon's property, but left it to the law
officers to decide to whom it should be given. As long as
almost all felonies were capital, he could understand the
value of a distinction, but now, when many misdemeanours
were more heinous than some felonies, the case was differ-
ent. The change suggested by these Bills would be a con-
siderable improvement, and in proposing these measures
he wished to be understood as not at all blaming the Statute
Law Commission for not having done so—it being, in fact,
out of their power. He thought the late Government had
acted wisely in endeavouring to prepare Bills relating to
the criminal law of both countries. Such was the scope of
the measures which he proposed to introduce, and he
availed himself of the opportunity of thanking his learned
friends, and especially the late Attorney-General and the
right lion, and learned member for the Cambridge -Culver-