Star.
London, England, 1826-04-18 00:00:00

CRIMINAL JUSTICE RILL.

Oa the motion of Mr. Secretary Put, the House went into a
Committee on this Bill.

Mr. Secretary PEEL said, that he had an alteration
to be made in two clauses, which were of an important
character. He wished in one to enlarge the authority
of the Magistrates with respect to the power of admit-
ing to bail in certain cases. At present that power
rested on very slender ground, a statute of Edward 1.
He wished to put it on more sure grounds, and to define
more clearly in what cases persons charged with felony
should be admitted to bail, arid in what cases, speaking
generally, bail should he refused. The clause which he
should propose would enact, that where a party was
charged with felony on oath of a credible witness,which
charge was not answered, and of course left a strong
presumption of guilt, the party should be committed ;
but in cases whete it appeired to the Magistrate (sap-
posing it to be brought before a single Magistrate),
that a strong case was not made out, and that a strong
presumption of guilt did not exist, then the Magistrate
would have the pOwer, and it would be his duty to
remand the party, until his case could be considered
by two Magistrates, who would in such case have the
power, if they took the same view of it, of admitting
the person to bail, taking care to have good and sub-
stantial bail. The experience of years had shewn, and
be would not go further back than the commitments of
the last seven years, that a vast number of p. rsons were
acquitted or discharged from want of prosecution, who
had been imprisoned for considerable periods for felony.
Now, if. the Committee looked to the effect of impri-
soning for a long period, in a comm )n gaol, an inno-
cent man on aoharge of
.felony, and considered that in
almost all c nes such a person came ut a much worse
man in point of moral characterthan he was-when he
went iii—(hear)---they Would nu, he was sure, object
to the grant of a power to Magistrates, which would
prevent, in many cases, the chance of an innocent man
being ezpo,ed to such a contamination. tie inserted
the word " felony," and that was a mo,t important
alteration, because at• present, where a man was charged with
felony, the Mnistrate, even though he might not think it a case
strongly presumptive of guilt, had not the power to admit to bail,
but must commit or discharge the prisoner.
Mr. SCARLET!' said that, in point of fact, Magistrates bad
already, on many occasions, exercised the power of admitting per.
sons to bail in doubtful cases.
DEN M A N said, that the word " competent" witness should
be inserted instead of the word " credible."

Mt. Secretary PEEL said, that he proposed to reprint the whole
of the Bill, with the additions.

After afew words from the Avrosanty-Grantaax, Mr. C. Wite
sox, Mr. TILZMAYNZ, and Sir G. Currwyon, the claim: was
agreed to.
On the next clause being read, which directed that Magistrates
should return the depositions, and that the Magistrate betore whom
the charge was heard should have the power of binding parties to
appear sod give evidence,
Mr. H. TWISS suggested that the trial should not be allowed to
come on until the depositions were returned into Court.
Mr. Secretary PEEL thought that this might lead to improper
collusions between parties, and to a delay of justice. It would be
better to leave those nutters to the decision of the judge.
Mr. H. TW I SS. said, that if the judge had the means of knowing
the depositions without their being returned, the objections would
be unanswerable; but how could the Judge know the discrepancy
betweee the first testimony of a witness before a magistrate and
that which he might give on the trial?
Mr. Secretary PEEL repeated his former objection.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL concurred in the observation
of his Right Hon. Mend, that the proposed alteration would leave
an opening to many collusions and delays of Justice.
Mr. SCAR LETT thought the depositions ought to be returned
to the ant of the Crown. _

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, as we understood, that
the Magistrates were at present required to return the depositions
into court.

After a few words from Mr. Site, Mr. Pan, and Mr. Guntaa
Lams, the clause was agreed to.
On the clause not to commit for misdemeanour unless the de.
positions should be taken as in cases of felony—
Mr. Secretary PEEL said be hoped the Committee would have
no objection to adopt this provision as a safeguard to the liberty of
the subject, although he admitted the clause was altogether a new
one---(Loud cheers)•—These depositions should be transferred to
the Court where the offence was tried, and though it gave perhaps
a little more trouble to the Magistrates, be had not the least doubt
the Magistrates would accede to this point.
Upon the next clause, Mr. PEEL hoped he should shortly be able
to presents BiU for abolishing the distinction between dergyable
and not clergyable felony ; which clause was also agreed to.
Mr. Secretary PEEL, in proposing the clause, that "if the
offences of Accessary and Principal be committed in different coun-
ties, the Accessary might be tried in oither," said it was suggested
to him by a celebrated cue which occurred at Hertford, and where
considerable difficulty presented itself to bring the criminal to justice,
in consequence of a defect in the law, which was supplied by the
present clause. [The Right Hon. Gentleman, we believe, alluded
to the case of Turpin, who was an accessary in the robbery at Lord
Cowper's, in Hertford, for which he was executed.]—Agreed to.
Mr. 8 Y KES suggested an Amendment to the Clause, which pro.
posed that " all offeoces committed on the boundaries of two or
more commies, may be tried in any of such counties, or within the
distance of five hundred yards of such boundary or boundaries,"
that he may he tried in whatever county he might be apprehended.
Mr. Secretary PEEL objected that great inconvenience would
arise from such an amendment. It was fairer to the prisoner that
he should be tried in ornear the county in which he could be mess
readily and easily furnished with the means of defence.
Mr. DEN MAN suggested that it might be left to the discre-
tion of the Magistrate by whom he was committed, to determine
in what county the prisoner should be tried. •
The clause in its original form, after a few words front Mr.
Sea &Lyre and the Soucrroa-Giumaat., was agreed to.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL, in the course of the discus-
sion, remarked that it was absurd to set aside indictments for such
omissions as the words, " contrary to the form of the Statute."
The old law was so particular in this respect, that Sergeant Haw-
kins had said that the surest way was, instead of saying contra
forma staduti qic siattsientn►, to sax centre ferment *amt.

Mr. SdAitt P.if aid that the old Was foe iai with frq
to time and place, which are very material with reference to the
in an elihi. _
Mr. Secretary PEEL said that he led die law as to an eiL;±
where he found it.
The Bill then went through the donimittee; the Report wai
brought up, and ordered to be taken Into could's-Alamo& Friday'
LA Rahlt BILL, af
Mr: Secretary PtEL,in moving the olderthe dad
'for the further considei odors of the Larceny Bill; said it
wasl.isintentiontoproposetonsiderablealterationstothe:
present state of the Bill. He had purposed to consolidati
all offences relating to property under one law, hin he
now Inteitded tti make a division Of them, tinder twa
Acts& The first should reldte to acts of larceny, and fe<:
lonians violations of the rights of property ; Ind the se.:
cond was to relate solely to the malicious destruction of
property. He had found this division rrecessart upon A
due consideration of the subject. He did ant relinquis!i
all hope of being able to catty the BM through
ment during the present Session; but if this were found to be
practicable, the Bill would be proposed at the earliest future oppor-
tunity. He wished the Bill to pass through the Committee, in
Order that it might be seen whether it could paw into a law.
Mr.-SCAItLBTT said, that the Bill was of great importance,
and he thought it better that the summer should be allowed for its
consideration.

The House then went into a Committee upon the 13111.
M-. Secretary PEEL said, that throughout the pre-
sent B 11 it would be seen that his constant endeavour
I was still further to reduce the number of sentences in-
fl ctiag the punishment of death—(Nenr, hear). Bf
'the old law, the stealing from a Church WAS punish-
able by death; but he doubted if stealing a prayer.;
book, for instance, from a place of Worship ought to
be visited with any such consequences. He did not ima-
gine that it would at all lessen the security of Churches
by putting them on the footing of dwelling-houses.—
He wished to make the offence capital only when the
Church was feloniously entered. The robbing of booths
at fairs would be also made a capital offence. Another
more important subject was the robbing of dwelling.
houses to the amount of 40s. This sum had been fixed
in the reign of Queen Anne, and he thought that the
raising of it to 51. would not lighten the prohibition of
the offence. This, of course, alluded to stealing, inde-
pendent of burglary. In the case of stealing fish, by the
law, as it now stands, no distinction was made between
stealing at night, or breaking down mounds, or robbing
under any other circumstance. The punishment for
breaking down mounds was seven years' transportation.
He certainly wished to protect the angler Trom such
consequences, for, by the common consent of mankind,
the angler was reckoned an exceedingly harmless sort
of a Gentleman —(A laugh).—He wished to enact,
that all persons who catch fish, or who try to catch fish
—(a laugh)—by angling, should be obliged, if requited,
by proper authority, to divulge their names and places
of residence, under a penalty of 201. Re also was
desirous of putting the stealing of deer or venison upon
the same footing as the stealing of mutton or any other
meat. At present, any person in the possession of venison
was liable to be cited before a Magistrate, and the
onus probandi, as to his becoming possessed of it, was
thrown entirely upon the accused. Tile result of the Bill would
be, to comprise about one hundred Statutes within the compass of
thirty pages. This would of itself be a great advantage, but ft was
of still greater importance to render the laws intelligible and cer-
tain, and to approximate punishment to the nature and degree
of offence.—The Bill then went through the Committee, the Report
was brought up, and ordered to be taken into consideration this day.
The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and the
House adjourned at Hats-ran Twxavx °Twat.