The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette. — 1860-02-07 (Dorchester, Dorset, England)

WEDNESDAY.  loner,  lie. Wiliam:in, in moving the second reading of the Appeal in Criminal Cams Bill, stated that it wu substantially the mane as that of a previous session, with a few alterations to obviate objections. He reinforced his argument in support of the Bill by testimonies from high authorities in favour of this change in our criminal procedure. Mr. W. Ewsee seconded the motion, and supported the Bill, recommending that it should be referred to a Select Committee. Sir G. Lewis impressed upon the House the importance of this question, and the serious consequences that would result from the adoption of the principle of the Bill. fir. ifliabon, hr observed, had alleged no practical grievance ; he had relied upon the authoritim in favour of an appeal and a new trial in criminal as well as civil miss; but be (Sir G. Lewis) had come to the conclusion that the weight of authorities was most decidedly on the opposite side. The absence of such appeals was nearly universal in other countries, and there must therefore be some good reason for this distinction between civil and criminal eases. The lemon was given by Lord Denman in 1848—namely, that there was no antagonism in criminal as in civil cases, where personal interests were involved. in criminal mass a  burden was cast upon prosecutors, and if • new trial were allowed in such cases, there would be so much difficulty in getting the prosecutor and the witnesses together again, that practically there would seldom be a new trial. It was said that there was a large number of improper convictions. He denied that there was any ground for affirming the frequency of elleli cases. He pointed out the probable consequences of the proposed change—the delay and uncertainty it would import into the administration of our criminal law ; the multiplication of trials, which would re_juire an addition to the judicial bench ; the costs of the new trial, which if they were to he paid by a poor man, would make the remedy a mockery, and they must eventually be defrayed out of some public fund ; and if an algolute right of appeal were given to a prisoner, it would be unjust to deny it to the prosecutor. He suggested other considerations which should operate as reasons for resisting the change, in Ireland and Scotland, as well as England. The invocation of the prerogative of the Crown to mitigate sentences and pardon offences was open to the poorest prisoner, whose application to the home-office could be made without delay, formality, or expense. He moved to defer the second reading of the Bill for six months. Mr. DENMAN, speaking from his experience as a sessions barrister, said he had never doubted, except in one instance, the correctness of the verdict of the jury in criminal prosecutions. The question of costs, in his opinion, was at the root of the whole matter. If the motion had been for a Committee to consider the question of criminal prosecutions, lie should have supported it, but lie opposed • Bill that would give • power to the rich as distinct from tue poor, create delay, and lead to further changes. Mr. PHILIPPS opposed the Bill. He thought the right it gave would not be for the benefit of • prisoner. Mr. JAMES observed that the machinery of the Bill which ignored the existing Court of Criminal Appeal and threw • burden upon the Court of Queen's Bench, already overburdened, was utterly impracticable. A conviction for murder might be suspended for three terms. Considering that the passing of such a measure would injure an ohject be approved, he supported the amendment. Mr. Gnonne likewise opposed the Bill, concurring with Sir G. Lewis that there was no foundation whatever for the measure, which would be mischievous to the last degree. Mr. alr.tum, agreeing with Mr. James that the machinery of the Bill was impossible and impracticable, was of opinion that the proposed change would be no improvement of the existing system, and that it would not operate beneficially for the pock. Mr. HENLEY dwelt upon the practical difficulties which would be created by certain provisions of the Bill. No case had been made out, he remarked, of any real injustice or injury now dune to anybody; the grimyance wss theoretical only. The