The Sun.
London, England, 1828-05-06 00:00:00

not be imposed on Foreign Wool, without injury to the
manufacturing interest, and he had now to inform the House
that it was not the intention of his Majesty's Government
to impose any duty on the article.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. W. WI MORE expressed his surprise that it
was the intention of 'Government to allow the appointment
of a committee. No good could result from such a com-
mittee, and its only effect would be to create alarm In the
country.
The petitionsivere then brought up, and read.
' Petitions against the Catholic Claims were presented by
Mr. CORRY (five), from Ireland; by Mr. H. Davis (two),
from Bristol ; by Mr. Dirscostim, from Sheffield (one) ;
and from the county of Wicklow three.
Petitions in favOur of emancipation were presented by
Mr. Huskisson (five), from Liverpool and other places ;
by Mr. Lumley, from Catholics in Nottinghamshire; by
Mr. Van Homrigh, from Catholics in Drogheda ; by Mr.
, Wallace, from Catholics in Dublin ; by Mr. C. P. Thom-
son, from Catholics in Margate and Canterbury ; by Mr.
H. Grattan (four), from Catholics in Ireland ; by Mr.
Rumbold (three), from Catholics- in England ; and by
Lord Wm. Russell, from Catholics in Shepton
Mr. HUSKISSON presented a petition from Liverpool,
against time practice of burning widows in India.
Mr. SLANEY brought in a Bill to amend the law
relating to the employment of able-bodied labourers, which
was read a first time, and ordered to Ire read a second time
on Monday.
Mr. W. PEEL presented some returns relative to pro-
secutions for fineries committed on the Bank of England.
Mr. LIDDELL presented a petition from the ship-
owners, merchants, and manufacturers of North Siiields,
praying that the country one pound bank-notes might not
be withdrawn from circulation.

After a few words from Mr. Bets., Sir J. GRAIIANI,
and Sir M. RIDLEY, the petition was ordered to hf! printed.
Mr. HE ATHCOTE presented a petition froM certain
owners of land in Lincolnshire, against the Government
C .lAesolutions.
:DUNCOMBE presented a similar petition from
To shire.

Sir J. ASTLEY presented a petition from certain ma-
nufacturers in Wilts, against a tax on wool

Me. C. PALLMER presented a like petition from-19a-
nufacturers in Surrey.
Mr. MARSHALL also presented another petition of the
same kind from manufacturers in the West Riding"of York-
shire—

OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON.

Mr. PEEL said, that betbre the Speaker left the Chair,
he was anxious to explain to the House7.the nature of the
subject about to he discussed. The Bills in question had
been prepared by a Noble Lord (the Marquis of Lans-
downe), whilst he filled the office of Secretary of State for
the Home Department. The measure which he was about
to propose would introduce some alteration in the Law of
Evidence. The Bill contained only four clauses, the ob-
jects of which were as follow :—The first' provided that
the affirmations of Quakers and Moravians (under a par-
titatler form). should be received in Courts of Justice in all
criminal cases. As the law now stood, their affirmations
were taken in civil cases : and the proposed law provided,
that it should be extended to them in criminal cases also.
This became the more essentially necessary, inasmuch as,
in many cases, where persons of those classes were the sue-
refers, criminals were allowed to escape, because neither
Ake Odiptor the other class would take the oath prescribed
in ou>t Courts of Justice. By the adoption of the pro-
posed clause no injury could arise, while it would, on
the other hand; materially forward the ends of justice.—
(Hear, hear.)The object of the second clause was,
to allow persons interested in cases of forgery to be
received as competent witnesses. As the law now stood,
a party injured by, and therefore interested in a case of
forgery, Was precluded from giving his evidence, which be
looked upon as a serious perversion of the ends of justice.
The third, clause had for its object the removal of all
doubts as -to third persons who were parties to felonies,
not capital, being competent to appear as witnesses for
prosecutionti. The fourth claise was of the same tenour,
and provided that persons convicted of misdemeanour, and
having undergone the punishment thereunto attached,
should be restored to their competency of giving evidence
in criminal Cases. One objection to this rule was, however,
very properly made, which was, that all persons convicted
of perjury should be debarred from giving evidence in such
tatses.—(Hear, hear.) The second Bill which he meant
to introduce, included the whole Statute Law of the
country relating to offences against the person: The
effect of this measure, if carried into a law, would be
the repeal 'of no less than fifty-seveo Acts of Parlia-
ment on that subject. These laws, as they now stood,
,were obscure and intricate, and the object of the prof:
posed measure .as nut so much to '.consolidate them as to
simplify therii and make them clear. As the law now
stood, a wife murdering her husband, a servant murdering
his master, or a clergyman murdering his clerical superior,
was considered guilty of petit treason, and in all such
"ciees the accused were allowed 85 challenges of jurors,
and two competent witnesses to prove their guilt. Now
he could not, in cases of this description, see any good
ground for departing from the general rule adopted in our
Courts incases of murder ; on the contrary, be conceived
that in all such cases the practice ought to be uniform.
There was another alteration, too, upon which he wished
to say a few words. According to the, existing law, a
person knowingly harbouring or concealing a murderer,
was, under the law of William, liable to imprisonment for
one year, or for a greater period of time. But he thought
it Would be right to make this a capital offence, and in sup-
port of his argument he mentioned the recent murders
which had' taken place at Fetcham (Surrey) the mur-
der of Mrs. Donatty, in the neighbourhood of Bed-
for&row, and the still snore recent murder of Mrs.
Jeffs, in Montague-place, as instances of the manner
in which the ends of justice must have been frus-
trated by the concealment of the guilty persons. An-
other criminal case in which he wished to make an
alteration was the following :—As the law now stood,
in all cases where parties were accused of murders, com-
mitted abroad, an examination must first take place before
the Privy Council—witness the case of Governor Wall.—
Timis, it was found, was productive of great inconvenience;
arse, lie meant to propose that an examination before a Jus-
tice of Peace in such cases should be sufficient. The next
point to which he wished to call the attention of the House
was au Act, commonly called Lord Ellenborough's Act, by
which, all cutting or maiming with a sharp instrument, or
firing with a gun ler pistol, with intent to kill or do some
grievous bodily harm, is held to he a capital offence ; while
all attacks with the same intent, if made with a blunt in-
strument, was visited in a different manner. He really
could not see why the one species of attack should be
differently punished from another, and therefore lie pro-
posed that, upon conviction, the punishment should be the
same in both cases. He would instance a-ease of very re,
cent Occurrence, in whisth a man named Howard at-
tempted, with a blunt instrument, to murder a Mr. Mullay,
whom he had enticed to his residence under certain false
pretences. Where, lie would ask, was the difference as to
moral turpitude between that case and the case of an at-
tack with a sharp instrument? Where was the difference
between a mortal blow given, or attempted to be given,
with a stick, or with dumb bells, and with a like attempt
made with a sword or a pistol? It was quite clear, that
if death ensued in either case, the criminal party would be
Aeceedekagaipst for murder. The next point to which
Ilse proposed Measure referred was—the wilful concealment,
by a female, of the birth of her child. As the law now
stood, it provided, that where a concealment of the birth
took place, and the infant died, or was born dead, the
female was, on conviction, punished with imprisonment,
even though she might have been indicted for the murder.
For liiinself, h^ did oot see any ground opon which any
difference ought to be made between married and single
women in such cases. On the contrary, he imagined that
if the law WaS just in the one case it was equally just in
the other. Again, he proposed to alter the law of ab-
duction, either with intent to defile or marry the
feresle, 4s the law slow stood, it extended protection
only to heiressea to lauded property- heiresses to funded
or other property being excluded. By the proposed
alteration lie meant to extend this protection to heiresses
in all ca.ses of abduction. Another clause provided, that
it should not be lawful to kill any person in the preven-
tion of a felony unless all other means for the prevention of
such felony were previcessly resorted to withoot effect. He
now came to two or three eases of much difficulty'and deli-
cacy, in which he meant to propose alterations in the exist-
ing law. He felt how unpleasant it was to trouble the
House with such a subject, but be also felt that he was, in
the discharge of the duty he had undertaken, called upon
to state them. The three offences to which he alluded,
were—rape committed uponn-goiwn females ; carnal knoW:.
ledge with intent to commit a like offence Upon infants
under teo years of age, and the third was, " the Crimea
infer qristianos non nominandum."—The Right Hon.
Gentleman, after ipteriUg into a detail of the evidence neces-
sary to obtain a conviction in either of such cases, evidenae
which, he observed, must consist, first, of proof of the assault ;
and, secondly, of the party having succeeded in his criminal ins
tentions--weat on to obsei ye, that by this Bill the first part of
the proof should be conslusive of the guilt of the accused, it
being in all cases difficult, *and in some impossible, to sub-
stantiate the other part of the cbarge, tie admitted that
such charges were eaisilv made, and with difficplty rebutted,
hut this 'formed no grlitind why protection should not be
afforded where it was most needed. The Right lion.
Member waist on to cite several cases of violation which