The Sun. — 1822-04-18 (London, England)

IRISH CIVIL LIST. Mr. HUME wished to know whether the Returns in detail relating to the Irish Civil List were ready to be laid before the House.  The Marquis of,LONDONDERRY hoped it would be in his powez to answer that question to-morrow or very shortly, but at present he 'was riot Ina situation to do so. BILL TO AMEND THE LAWS . RELATIVE TO  • CERTAIN CASES OF FELONY v Mr. BENNET, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Law respecting Accessories before the Fact in certain Felonies, observed, that it might seem to call for an apology that he had taken on himself to make a proposition which might seem to come more properly from a Member of the profession of the Law. He had not, however, brought forward his motion without consulting Gentlemen of professional experience, and the evil he proposed to remedy was so obvious that he had little hesitation in proposing his Bill, In cases of murder and arson accessaries before the fact could be punished as principals ; but in cases of other felonies, as burglaries, these accessaries could only be prosecuted for misdemeanour, so that the persons who had altogether planned and contrived a robbery might escape with a trifling punishment, and in those instances in which the actual perpetrators of the crime could not be brought to justice without any punishment at all. Cases were 'thus constantly arising in which the greatest criminals were suffered to escape. • A. jeweller had recently been robbed of property to the value of 2,0001. sterling; an apprentice giving information to the robbers, and affording them the means of perpetrating thetr crime .;.but two of the robbers escaped, and the third; liavivieffirned-King,s evidence, this apprentice was set loose 00.3.heo.ivoild. with merely a lecture from the Judge, who expressed his regret that theramas no law to punish him. He proposed in all such cases to give the Court the power of sentencing the accessary before the fact to transportation.— Leave given to bring in the Bill. Mr. BENNET said there was another motion of which. he had intended to have fortified himself with many cases, for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the law respecting the crime of ManslauOter, but in conversation since he had come into the House, the necessity for a severer punishment in aggravated cases of this crime seemed so general, that he should make few observations. Nothing could be more obvious than the great shades of difference between the lowest degree of criminality by which death could be occasioned, and that which bordered on the crime of murder. Yet, in any of these cases, the highest punishment that could be inflicted was twelve months imprisonment. A case had recently occurred, in which a man had been thrown out of the window of a house of ill fame, and had died, after languishing some time in the greatest agony, yet the highest punishment that could be inflicted in this case was twelve months imprisonment. Be thought the Court in such cases should have the power of sentencing to so much as fourteen years transportation. He moved for leave to bring in his Bill. Mr. W YNN agreed entirely with the Hon. Gentleman, that there was no part of the law so defective as that relating to Manslaughter. He should only mention, that the causing of death by a mere accidental blow in a scuffle, and the deMerate killing of an officer, who might be executing a warrant in which there was an illegularity, was just the same offence in the eye of the law, and. the Judge would be obliged to inflict just the same punishment, with the exception of branding, which no one would wish to see resorted to, if there were any other mode of marking the sense of a crime.