The Sun. — 1858-02-10 (London, England)

SOLICITOR-GENERAL said, notwithstanding the wide field over which the noble lord had passed, he believed the decision of the house would, after all, turn on the question with which he started—via., whether or not the present law was sufficient for the purpose ; and, with great deference to the noble lord, he would declare his own belief that it was insufficient. He ventured to say that the law on this subject was more anomalous in its operation and more inadequate to the attainment of the object than any other branch of our criminal law. Ono reason why an alteration was required was the change of circumstances. Increased communication had brought into this country a number of persons who were opposed to the laws of their native land. England gave them protection, bat it was not unreasonable to require that they should have it on the same conditions on which it 'was enjoyed by Englishmen. If Englishmen conspired in England to send an Englishman abroad to commit a murder, those who remained here might be indicted for the offence; if foreigners conspired here for the same purpose, any of the number who remained would only be punishable with fine awl imprisonment; they would only have committed at common law a misdemeanour. That wet; an anomaly in the position of foreigners as compared with Englishmen which, independently of the severity of the punishment, required alteration. Moreover, he would put it to the house whether the crime of conspiracy to commit murder was adoquetely punished 'by fine and imprisonment? The noble lord had said that this bill would be of no avail, because those who would be affected by it were enthuceasts. But the measure did not propose to legislate for enthusiasts. It would legislatenot for those who went out to commit murder, bat for those conspirators who remained behind. The punishment for those to whom the noble lord's epithet attached would be capital. The noble lord, too, objected against the bill, that it was not a legal reform, for it was not introduced as a legal measure, and allusion was then tnede to those eensolidaHon bills which were to ho brought before the house. Now the fact was that the present bill could not properly be introduced with oth r bills. Those were measures based upon the report of the statute law commission, and they were in the main in the nature of bills to consolidate existing statutes. They did no doubt in some degree amend the law, but it would have been a very unfit course to have placed provisions amongst their clauses amounting to 5) tot %Ily novel a step in legislation es the present bill. Such provisions would there heve been nut of place. But suppose the government had taken such a coorse, and introduced the clauses of this measure into that bill, what then would have been said? It would have been said that et the request of France an alteration was about to be made in our law, and that an endeavour was made to shuffle that alteration unob4erved through the House of Commons. It had been almost admitted by some that this was a good bill, but it was said the house ought not to pass it now. Really he could not see why a bill should be thrown out on Tuesday to be introduced on Thurs(ley. In truth, it was not over easy to arrive at what werei the real objections to the hie). It must be that if the noble lord established his proposition, that the bill was not an improvement of the law, ad m itt d and that fine and imprisonment were sufficient punishments, then no doubt legislation was unnecessary, but, the instances given by the noble lord failed to bear out his statement. Indeed, the only tangible objection to the measure was this, that it ought not to be passed at the present time. Bat be trusted that the house would look at its contents, and if it was found to be an improvement in our criminal code, that it would not hesitate to pass it. Mr.