The Sun.
London, England, 1844-05-31 00:00:00

Lord COTTENHAM said the object of this measure
might be attained without giving the large powers which
were contained in the Bill.

Lord BROUGHAM said there were very many cases
in existence in which the funds of public schools were
misappropriated.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said it was his inten-
tion to introduce a Bill in the course of the present ses-
sion upon the subject.
After a few words from Earl Fitzwilliam, Lord Wharn-
cliffe, and Lord Cottenham,, the Bill was read a second

The Marquis of NORMANBY gave notice that he
should call the attention of the House to-morrow to a
contradiction of certain facts, stated in a letter from Mr.
Hamilton, the Crown Solicitor for the North-East Cir-
cuit in Ireland, in a matter mentioned by a Noble
Friend the other night, for as the allegations in that let-
ter seriously affected tho character of individuals, he felt
it right to give the same publicity to the contradiction
which had been given to the charge.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 80.
APPEAL IN CRIMINAL CAnES.
M,r. KELLY rose pursuant to notice to ask for leave
to bring in a Bill to provide an appeal in criminal
cases. • It was almost incredible that while in
every case of a civil character, no matter whether the
question involved a large or a small amount of
money, the law as it stood at present gave an
appeal., A person who Mt himself aggrieved
either by the verdict of a jury or the decision of a judge,
could appeal from that verdict or that decision, and
carry the case even before the highest tribunal
of the land. But in a criminal case, which
must involve a question of character, property, or
even life, there was no appeal, according to the law of
England, against the verdict of the jury, however erro-
neous, or the decision of the judge, however mistaken.
In every country in Europe, and throughout every
civilized country in the world, an appeal was given as
well in criminal cases as in civil, and the error of a jury
or a judge must be rectified by appeal ; but in this
country the state of the law was such, that no matter
how glaring and palpable might be the error into which
the jury might have been led, or however mistaken the
judge might have been in point of law, there was no
remedy for the party injured, though his liberty, his
character, his property, or even his life might be in
jeopardy. To remedy such a state of things he now
.asked for leave to bring in a Bill—the guiding principle
of which was that it endeavoured to assimilate as far as
was practically possible the law and practice in criminal
cases, to the law and practice in civil cases. The Ho-
nourable and Learned Gentlemen then went on to show
what the practice was with regard to civil cases.
In all civil cases any person who thought himself ag-
grieved, either by an error in the verdict of the jury or
by an error in the statement of the law as made by the
judge, had an opportunity of appealing, first of all to a
court composed of four or five judges, next to a court
• composed of double that number of judges, and ulti-
mately to the House of Lords. The consequence was
that, in the administration of the law in civil cases, any
errors which were committed were remediable, were cor-

rected most frequently, and ultimately justice was done.
The result was, that in all civil cases there was the ut.
most confidence throughout all classes of the com•
munity that justice was done in courts in civil cases. It
was almost without an example that any attempt had
ever been made either. in Parliament or by the press to
impeach the judgments of courts of law in civil cases,
because all were agreed that if a party acquiesced in
an unjust decision it was his own fault, because he pos-
sessed the power of appealing, if he chose to exercise it.
In criminal cases, however, the state of the law was
directly the reverse, and it was inconceivable, looking at
the constant improvement which had taken place in our
laws, and to the anxiety which. the Legislature had
manifested to amend the defects, it was inconceivable
that century after century such a state of things should
have been suffered to exist, when the remedy was so
plain, so easy, and so certain. In civil cases, in which
property alone was affected, an appeal was allowed, but
there was no appeal in criminal cases, in which lite itself
was sometimes at stake. He proposed to remedy this
evil ; but before he drew the attention of the House to
the remedy which he proposed, he must take the liberty
of observing that he did not believe that such a state of
the law would have been suffered to exist if the Members
of either House
_of Parliament had been as liable to be
indicted for crimes as all were to be parties in civil
actions.—(Hear, hear.) It happened that the criminal
law applied more frequently against the humbler classes
of society; but if the Members of the Legislature had
been as liable to have their characters, their liberties,
their property, and their lives placed in jeopardy by the
criminal law, as their property was in civil cases, he felt
assured that the same remedy would have been provided
in criminal cases that was at present provided in all civil
cases. It was impossible to conceive any state of the
law more opposed to the due administration of justiice
than was the state of our criminal law. A man was in-
dicted—he was tried, evidence was adduced, as in other
cases. on the one side and on the other. By a modern
improvement, which, strange to say, had been much op-
posed, counsel might now be heard for the defence in
criminal as well as in civil cases, which he acknowledged
was a great improvement ; the judge summed up the
case, and the jury returned their verdict. The verdict
was returned ; there was only one of three courses
which could be taken, whatever doubts might exist as
to the propriety of that verdict, or as to the correctness
of the learned judge in stating the case to the jury. After
a verdict of guilty was once pronounced against a pri-
soner, however convinced the counsel might be that
that verdict had been procured by means of false evi-
dence—although the prisoner might know it was wrong,
—although all present might be convinced that the pri-
soner was innocent—although all lawyers might feel as-
sured that the judge, in his charge to the jury, was mis-
taken, there was no appeal allowed by which this mis-
take could be remedied. There was no means of ob-
taining a reviewal of that decision but in two ways,
which he would state to the House. But before doing
so, he would observe that, upon a verdict of guilty, even
if the evidence was ever so untrue or misrepresented,
if the Learned Judge was satisfied with the verdict
there was no remedy ; he passed sentence, and it was
carried into effect even to death itself.—(Hear,
hear.) No one familiar with the practice of the
criminal courts of this country could entertain a doubt
upon the fact that there had been a great many
cases where the verdict had been wrong or the charge of
.the judge wrong, inasmuch as there was no power of
correcting if injustice Ras done and the innocent suffered
death. He could mention many cases to prove what he
had stated, but as he did not wish to trouble the House
at length he would only advert to one. Nine years ago
a man named Chalker was indicted with another man at
Suffolk, for the murder of a gamekeeper in a wood. The
trial came on before an eminent judge now no more ;
evidence was given that Chalker was in the wood at the
time of. the murder, blood was found upon his clothes,
and there was circumstantial evidence more or less strong
of his guilt. The Learned Judge had early in the trial
taken an impression against the prisoner; he summed the
case up most clearly and impartially, but most ingeniously.
Chalker was convicted, and his fellow prisoner acquitted.
He declared that his fellow prisoner was as innocent as him-
self, and the counsel for Chalker being convinced of his
innocence, took the greatest trouble to establish that
fact, and having collected a mass of evidence on the sub-
ject, he laid it before the judge, in hopes, at least, of
obtaining a respite for some time of the sentence of
death that had been pronounced on Chalker, but the
Learned Judge adhered to the opinion he had formed,
declared himself perlfectly satisfied of the prisoner's
guilt, and refused to interfere. Chalker suffered death ;
but it had since transpired that the man who had actually
committed the murder, who had seen the miserable vic-
tim executed, had come forward and confessed his guilt,
declared he was the murderer, that the man who was
executed was innocent, and gave himself up to jus-
tice. This was one among many instances
which time brought forth, of persons being convicted of
crimes, and suffering punishment, because there was no
appeal froth the sentence passed upon them. There
was no remission of the penalty, because there was no
appeal by law. It might be said that whenever the cir-
cumstances warranted doubt of the prisoner's guilt,
whenever there was any. serious objection raised, that no
judge would refuse an inquiry, which might be had by
applying to the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
ment ; and whenever a legal objection of weight was put
forward in the prisoner's favour, it could be argued in
error, before twelve or fifteen of the judges. In answer
to these arguments, he replied that there was nothing to
compel the judge to reserve these objections ; and most
learned and eminent judges had, over and over again,
refused to reserve objections which subsequently appeared
to have been well founded. He remembered a case in point
among his own extremely limited practice in criminal
law. A man was indicted in the county of Huntingdon
some years ago, and tried before a Learned Judge now
no more. Evidence was given ; the case had closed ;
he (Mr. F. Kelly) was counsel for the prisoner, and sub-
mitted with great confidence to the Learned udge cer-
tain very strong points in the prisoner's favour. He
submitted that although the man might have been guilty
of a very gross offence, which would have amounted to
a misdemeanour, and perhaps rendered him liable to
transportation, still, according to the terms of the indict-
ment, he was not guilty ; he should have been tried on
an indictment differently framed. His offence, he sub-
mitted, was not a capital one, and he should not be
punished for it as such. He urged these points on the
Learned Judge in Court with all the force and earnest-
ness he was capable of; but the Learned Judge decided
in a most peremptory manner against reserving the ob
jection. He again pressed upon the Learned Judge in
Court the propriety of suspending the execution of the
prisoner, but was again refused in the same peremptory
planner. reeling the strength of his objection,