The Sun.
London, England, 1844-05-03 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS,-Mar' 2.

Their Lordships met at Five o'Cloble.
Mes engers from the Commons brought up several
Bills, which were read a first time.
Lord BROUGHAM presented a. petition from per-
sons engdged in the woolen manufactures in certain
parts of Scotland, against any interference by the Legis-
lature with labour.
RECOVERY OF DEBTS (IRELAND).
Lord CAMPBELL laid on the table of the House a
Bill to facilitate the r,covery of debts in Ireland; The
objvct of the Bill was to provide a remedy fore creditors
in Ireland against their absentee creditors in this country.
He expressed hi: surprise that the Government li ti. nct
brought such a Bill forward before this time.
. The Earl of IVICKLOW defended the-GovernMent,
and expressed his surprise that the Noble and-Learned
Lord did not, while one of the law officers of 'the Crown,
intruluce such a Bill as the present if he'theught <it was
so necessary.

Lord CANIPBELL said he would have done' %to had
he known that the inconvenience of which he complained
was in existence at the time he was in office.
The Bill was then laid on the table. •

Lord LYTTELTON presented a petition from' a per-
son named 'Wharton, residing in Stourbridge;, praying
their Lordships to adopt a plan which he proposed for
the payment of the National Debt.—(Laughter.)
The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition. from
Sussex, in favour of protection to agriculture: =' '`"
HOLYHEAD HARBOUR.'
In answer to a question from Lord MONTE.OLE,
The Duke of WELLINGTON said the qiieWen of
facilitating the communication between this conntr?and
Ireland had been under the consideration of the Go-
vernment, and they had determined to continue that
communication by means of Holyhead With regard to
granting money for this purpose, the" Government-had
postponed their decision until after the railway to Holy-
head, which was now before Parliament, had been dis-
posed of.
Earl FITZ WILLIAM thought a . coMmission
ought to be appointed to inquire as to what..pointa e.f the
country required railways, and what parts .clid n'ot,.; and
that no other railways ought to be sanctiotiK, :.4cept
those approved by such Commission.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said he thought the
appointment of such a Commission would be like shut-
ting a stable door when the steed was stolen.---(Laughter.)
Lord BROUGHAM thought such a commission was
necessary for the purpose of protecting imlividuals.
The house of Earl Grey for instance in Northumber-
land had been greatly injured by a railway passing
close under it, and it was but poor consolation to that
Noble Earl, after being driven from his house to be
told, that he must yield to public convenience.
After a few words from the Marquis of LANS-
DOWNE,
Earl FITZ WILLIAM gave notice that ho would
move the appointment of such a commission on Tues-
day next.
SANATORY REGULATIONS RESPECTING, THE
DWELLINGS OF THE POOR. .

The Marquis of NORMANBY rose to present a pe-
tition from the working men of Edinburgh, praying the
House to pass a Bill which would establish-better
sanatory regulations with respect to the dwellings of the
poor. The petitioners prayed that steps might be taken
by which the dwellings of the poor might be abundantly
rupplied with good water ; and they also prayed for the
repeal of the duty on soap. They had formed them-
selves into a society on this subject, and they acknow-
ledged with gratitude in the petition the receipt of a
magnificent donation from his Royal Highness Prince
Albert towards .the funds of the society. The Noble
Marquis then enlarged upon the necessity for immediate
legislation upon this subject. He reminded their Lord-
ships that 50,000 persons annually died in this kingdom
of diseases which might be prevented if there were good
sanatory regulations in existence. It was now four
years since he first brought this subject under the
consideration of their Lordships, and he hoped that
another session would not be allowed to pass without
the subject being fully considered by Parliament.
The Duke of BUCCLEUCH said that the Bills which
the Noble Marquis had brought forward on this subject
had been passed very rapidly in that House; but when
they were sent to the other House of Parliament, they
were found by practical men to be quite inefficient for
the purpose for which the Noble Marquis • intended
them, for it was found that the remedies which
the Noble Marquis proposed were found to be such, that
to carry them out would be attended with an expense
equal to a confiscation of the property to which it
applied.
Lord CAMPBELL hoped the Government would
take the prayer of the petition into their serious consi-
deration, comini, as it did from a city which had been
properly termed' the Modern Athens, and which was
worthy of the term, both on account of beauty of its
buildings and the intelligence of its inhabitants.
Lord BROUGHAM said that if his Noble and
Learned Friend had been the representative of Edin-
burgh now, he certainly would not have had the support
of his constituents in what he had stated, for they con-
sidered it as an insult to have their city termed the
Modern Athens.—(Laughter.)
Lord CAMPBELL said that Edinburgh had produced
his Noble Friend, and he was an Alcibiades, a Pericles,
and a Demosthenes, in his own person.—(Laughter.)
After a few words from the Marquis of NORMANBY
and the I)uke of BUCCLETJCH, in explanation, the peti-
tion was laid on the table.
WRIT OF ERROR BILL.

Lord CAMPBELL rose to move the second reading
of this Bill, which he had been already permitted to
place on the table of their Lordships' House. A great
defect at present existed in the law, and one which re-
quired a speedy remedy. A writ of error could be bad
from all the inferior courts to the Queen's Bench, and
from the Court of Queen's Bench to that House, and
this was necessary to preserve a uniform administration
of justice. Whatever opinion might exist as to the mode
in which the House of Lords discharged its political
duty, he believed there was but one opinion of the man-
ner in which their Lordships executed their judicial
functions, and which gave the greatest satisfac-
tion. There was a great difficulty with re-
spect to what was done in cases of misde-
meanour, where the writ of error was brought after the
sentence of imprisonment had been passed. With respect
to civil cases a difficulty existed, but it was surmounted
by giving good security to pay the sum adjudged to
be due, the sentence was suspended until the writ of
error was tried. But with respect to writs of error in
cases of misdemeanor the most serious evils remained to
be remedied. No writ of error could be brought on any
interlocutory matter until the final judgment of the Court
was given •, and when the sentence of imprisonment was
pronounced it must be carried into immediate execution.
He knew no exception to this rule except, perhaps, one
case in Yorkshire, where the experiment was made on a
small scale. He was a notorious poacher, and the Court
sentenced him to six months' imprisonment, but the sen-
tence was not to be carried into execution until the first
day of the shooting season (September), so that he might
be kept in prison the whole of that period. He believed
that though this was a very ingenious and salutary sort
of suspension, it was yet contrary to law, for the impri-
sonment must commence in a court of criminal jurisdic-
tion from the day of the sentence being passed. If the
prisoner was already under sentence for another offence,
the punishment for the second must begin when the first
ended. The Court had no power to pronounce a sen-
tence of future imprisonment, nor had any criminal court
the power to suspend the execution of a sentence pending
a writ of error. Even the Crown had no power to in-
terfere. The Crown might pardon or remit the punish-
ment, but it could not suspend an execution
pending a writ of error. By the law of Eng-
land, in cases of misdemeanor the party was
entitled to liberty until the law finally determined he
should be punished. When a sufficient security was
given that the party charged with the misdemeanor had
come forward to take his trial, he was dejure entitled to
be discharged; and even after the verdict of the jury he
sentence wasa
wsrtiitl
oentitlederror t
Nov
abse
hdischargedo orne
vgi
eowo d t
hs eacuareittyte.
was it not monstrous that that sentence should in the
meantime be carried into execution? It might happen
that a writ of error was obtained just before the long
vacation commenced; the Court of Queen'sßench did
not sit from June to November, nor their Lordships
fromniv
ia oJu la);
must b
until February,
enforced eroed
and
during3eh
t Tee
sentence
interval,
up
upon the
idwhether
the writ of error succeeded afterwards or not. He was
not stating any merely visionary case. There were un-
fortunately some illustrations of it. It was contrary. to
Magna Charts that such should be the case, for it set
forth that no man should be deprived of his liberty ex-
cept by the law of the land. Yet a few years ago a case
occured in Ireland, that of Mr. tadford Roe, ;vho, having
been convicted and imprisoned, brought a writ of error
to that
to ut
he
House;rge andurged
h y theth e casepris ne
11
having
wereb feonu n reviewed,
N• therind
objections
he was discharged, but not until he had undergen
scandal twelve months'
aidinmpiraiissotran mtieonn of jVt. Naasstieneo,t thingaseudcheadisg raeea
to the law? The Bill he introduced would remedy this
grievance, and he apprehended its principles were un-
objectionable. A writ of error, it should be
recol-
lected, was not obtained as a matter of course, it
could only be had under the fiat of the Queen's
Attorney-General—the accused should then enter into
such securities to be forthcoming at the proper time as
would be every way satisfactory to the Court. He pro-
posed that when the fiat was obtained, and when the
securities were entered into that the defendant would be
forthcoming to receive punishment, punishment should.
not be inflicted until the superior court had decided
whether it was in accordance with the law, or contrary
to the law, that that punishment should be inflicted.
That was the principle which he now asked their Lord-
ships to affirm. It was said that, if such a principle
were laid down, writs of error would vastly multiply ;
but it should be recollected that they could be
,brought
upon no frivolous objection, and on no false pretence.
The sanction of the Attorney-Genet al was indiSpensible.
and the scrutiny of the Court would act as a prevention.
A writ of error could not be brought upon the bare
facts or merits of the case upon which the jury had.
already decided ; but solely upon a question, of law.
The Attorney-General's guarantee might he considered
sufficient that the objections were not frivolous or raised
for the mere purposes of delay, and they might rely on
the caution of the Court that the securities were ful-
filled. The Attorney-General had, in other matters,
great powers cnnferred upon him, and if he neglected
or abused his duty in any manner, he might be
impeached in Parliament. But, another objection was
urged, of a very futile nature indeed, that the
present state of things had been going onfor a very long
time, and that no great objection had been made to the
law in its present form. Surely their Lordships would
not'consider these objections arguments, for the very
same sort of pretexts might have been urged for the con-
tinuance of every bad law, and for the prevention of
everyspecies of improvement.. Torture was once ay-
plied an this—country to 'exacta a confes'sion ficfm the