Commons Sitting of 22 February 1827

CORN LAWS — EQUALIZATION OF CONTRACTS.
Mr. J. Maxwellpresented a petition from the productive classes of Renfrew, praying for Reform, a free trade in Corn, and an Equalization of Contracts.

631
The genius and spirit of the constitution, the hon. member said, seemed to justify the extension of suffrage to those who paid taxes; and the result of such extension would produce greater economy in government. A free trade in corn would partly indemnify the artisan and labourer for the evils induced by the rivalry of mechanical labour, without disturbing the general law for agricultural protection. A revision of contracts would preserve the debtor from being defrauded by his creditor under false pretences, avert the risk of national bankruptcy, and give the sanction of public opinion, and its security, to the creditor of the state. A contrary course contributed to discontent, increase of poor-rates, and unjust revolutions in property; and when monied, as well as commercial, manufacturing, and agricultural, income should be reduced 30 per cent—as the currency which represented, as well as measured, all income, had already been by the return to cash payments; the levying taxes to pay the interest of the debt, and to defray the expenses of the state, might become impracticable.
Mr. E. Davenporttook occasion to complain of the conduct of Ministers, with respect to the question of the currency. He had already given a vague notice on the subject; and he believed that, in consequence of this threat, ministers had been induced to put off the consideration of the Corn question from the day for which they had originally given notice. He would now take the opportunity of saying, that he would redeem the pledge which he had given, and take a speedy opportunity of formally bringing the subject under the consideration of the House.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that if the hon. member had not concluded by giving this general notice, he should scarcely have been able to comprehend exactly what he was at. But, if he supposed that government had been induced to postpone the Corn question on account of any thing he might have said in that House, or what any one might have said any where else, he could only undertake to give to such an assertion a peremptory denial.
Mr. Maberlycomplained of the manner in which ministers had acted with respect to the currency question. They first tampered with the currency of England without inquiry. Without inquiry they created
632
a paper monopoly. Then, as to Scotland, they inquired into the currency of that country, and the result was, that they left it as it was. Then again, they neither inquired into, nor touched at all upon, the currency of Ireland. This was the sort of interference—this the description of policy —which they called legislation !
Lord Folkestonecharged ministers with supineness in having so long neglected the vital question of the currency. Their conduct gave rise to the inference, that they had altered their opinions upon the subject; for they had failed to carry into effect the principles which they set out with avowing. There was a tampering already going on with the currency; and, under such circumstances, the question could never be said to be settled.
Ordered to lie on the table.

CRIMINAL LAWS—BILLS FOR THE CONSOLIDATION OF.
Mr. Secretary Peelrose to bring forward his promised motion. He had now, he said, agreeably to that motion, to apply to the House for leave to bring in four bills, having for their object the simplification and consolidation of the statutes relating to the Criminal Laws. The first of those bills was intended to consolidate and amend the laws relating to theft, and the various offences connected therewith. The second was to amend the law relating to another class of offence against the subject, namely, a wilful and malicious injury of property. The third bill for which he should move, would be to consolidate and amend the laws relating to remedies against the hundred. And the fourth bill which he should submit to the notice of the House, would have the effect of repealing such statutes as would be superseded by the three first bills, in order not to encumber the Statute-book, by the introduction of separate acts of parliament for the attainment of that object. By this means, the three bills which he had already named would not be impeded in their operation, by clauses and enactments contrary to their spirit. He had entered last session so fully into the policy and necessity of amending the criminal statutes, that he was not sure whether it was at all necessary to enforce the reasoning which he then used, or to trouble the House with a repetition of his views, notwithstanding some of the members whom he had now the honour to address were not in parlia-

633
ment on that occasion. Indeed, it required no very powerful reasoning to show the necessity and policy of consolidating the criminal laws of this country, and of simplifying, as much as possible, those statutes relating to crime and misdemeanour, which had hitherto created so much error and confusion in our courts of justice. Such a course as that of revising and consolidating confused and unintelligible statutes appeared so consistent with reason and common sense, that he scarcely thought it necessary to adduce any arguments in its favour, where all whom he had the honour to address must agree in the necessity of the measure. He was therefore quite satisfied that the House would sanction the part which he had taken, and confirm the support which his predecessor had given to the subject. The House, however, was not called upon to give a blind judgment: on the contrary, he wished and expected that honourable gentlemen would reserve to themselves the power of expressing an opinion on a subject of such vital importance. Although, however, he had suggested many changes, he had not, after all, proposed any very important alterations in the criminal statutes; because he was desirous of proceeding gradually in the course of improvement, and to avoid as much as possible the use of rash experiments. What he wished was, to collect all that was valuable from existing statutes, and to preserve from a mass of contradiction and confusion, various clauses and provisions introduced at different periods into our criminal laws. He was desirous of selecting all that was worthy of being preserved, in order to present to the House a useful and efficient statute, and thus to place as it were in juxta-position all the law connected with the criminal jurisprudence of the country. It was his wish to abolish every part of the criminal statutes that could not with safety be acted on, and to accommodate the laws relating to crime to the present circumstances of the country, and the improved state of society.
Feeling, therefore, that the House would agree, in principle at least, to the measures which he intended to propose, he did not think it necessary to trouble them with any further arguments, but would proceed at once to explain the present state of the law relating to theft, which was the subject of his first bill. It was the practice, in criminal courts of justice,
634
to distinguish between grand and petty larceny, and to award different punishments for each crime. It appeared, however, that the only difference between them consisted in the amount of the property stolen; for thus the law stood on the subject. If a man was convicted of stealing an article under the value of one shilling, it was simple larceny, punishable at the option of the magistrate before whom the case was heard; but, if the property stolen exceeded one shilling in value, the crime was called grand larceny, to which a capital punishment was attached. Now, after giving to the subject his best consideration, he could not see the necessity of retaining the distinction which the law laid down in these cases. There were many inferior courts spread throughout this country, which had power to take cognizance of, and to try persons charged with, the crime of petty larceny, but who had not power to try for the crime of grand larceny. The consequence of this was, that both courts and prosecutors, feeling the great expense and inconvenience of sending persons charged with these offences to be tried by the higher tribunals, agreed to evade the law, by stating in the indictment, that the value of the article stolen was less than one shilling. These instances, it was true, were not very creditable to the parties concerned, but they furnished ample reasons for abolishing all distinctions between grand and petty larceny. He would, therefore, unite the different species of the crime of larceny under one general law; and he would fix, as the maximum of punishment, a sentence of transportation for seven years. It was hitherto the custom to mitigate the sentences affixed to the crime of grand larceny; but he owned he could not see the reason why, if the power existed, a criminal convicted of this crime should not be transported for stealing to the value of two shillings. There was a material difference between grand and simple larceny, when a prisoner was twice convicted. A man who repeated the crime of grand larceny, was liable to a sentence of death, without benefit of clergy. He meant to propose, that the capital punishment should be dispensed with in this instance. He would propose also to do away with a term which had long been mixed up with the criminal law of England. He meant the "benefit of clergy." It was extremely difficult to

635
apply the term "without benefit of clergy" to any particular crime, and to say what was a clergyable offence. It appeared to him, that the law in this particular should be simplified. Instead of saying, therefore, that the man who commits grand larceny a second time was guilty of a capital offence, without benefit of clergy, he proposed to substitute the punishment of transportation for life. This would serve to make the law more clear and intelligible; and he was sure that the House would go with him in every alteration he proposed, whereby the number of capital crimes might be lessened. Thus, the man convicted of grand larceny a second time would no longer be subject to death. In proposing this alteration he was aware, however, that it was not very material; as it rarely occurred that the penalty of death was put in force when a man was convicted of grand larceny a second time; but it was right at the same time, that the law in this particular should be clear and determinate; for it was one of the just objections brought by foreigners against the criminal laws of England, that we condemned men to death for crimes, who were never executed, and whose sentence was, in fact, never intended to be carried into effect. It would therefore be a material improvement, if in every available instance, we could erase capital punishments from the Statute-book, and provide milder punishments, and thereby avoid the mockery of condemning men to death, merely because that penalty was attached to the crime which they had committed. He proposed also to mitigate the penalty for stealing in a dwelling-house to the value of forty shillings. According to the law, as it now stood, the penalty of death was attached to that crime. A distinction, however, he conceived should be made; and there were cases in which the punishment of death might be considered harsh and unnecessary. He therefore meant to propose, that the sum of forty shillings should be raised to a higher amount; by which means the number of capital convictions for this species of crime would be considerably diminished. He was not prepared to say whether or no it might not be necessary to go further in the plan of reducing the number of capital convictions. Much had lately been done, and much remained to do; but he thought he might claim some credit to himself for having
636
done more towards the great and important object of improving and consolidating the criminal statutes of this country, than any other individual who had gone before him. He never was an advocate for the infliction of capital punishments, and he thought it would be found, on comparing the executions for the last five years, in which he had presided at the home department, that they had not increased in number, as compared with those that had taken place in former years. Willing as he felt, however, to reduce the amount of capital convictions, he advised the House not to be led away too far by mistaken feelings. If parliament were to proceed too rapidly to overthrow the existing enactments, a strong prejudice might arise in the country against measures that were intended for the public good; and thus the great object of justice and humanity might be defeated.
With respect to the law relative to malicious injuries to property, which his second bill was intended to embrace, he conceived that it might be beneficially altered, and confined within proper limits. He conceived the punishment attached to the crime of cutting down hop-fences, stakes, hedges, &c, was neither clearly nor properly defined; and therefore he proposed to abrogate the law altogether, and try the effects of a milder punishment. Without entering more fully into the particular clauses of each bill, of which the committee, whose appointment he anticipated, could best judge; he would now only refer to the general principles upon which he came forward to claim the countenance and support of the House. Notwithstanding the very able assistance he had had, he felt considerable difficulty in drawing up the bills which he hoped to be allowed to introduce; owing to the number of abstruse and unintelligible phrases which he found it necessary to use, in compliance with the usage of the law in this particular. The endless repetition of words; the confusion of the singular and plural number; the frequent use of the words "party or parties," "defendant or defendants," "corporations," or "person," had always, he confessed, puzzled him beyond measure, whenever he had occasion to refer to an act of parliament. He had, therefore, in the bills which he had framed, avoided as much as possible the confusion arising from the frequent introduction of words and phrases;

637
and at the commencement of each bill, he had defined the precise punishment for each particular crime, adding to the end of the bill, in order to remove any doubt occasioned by the ambiguity of the language, that the word "person," when mentioned in the body of the bill, should be taken to mean the party accused, whether man, woman, or child, and that the same should hold good, with regard to owner, defendant, or defendants, or by whatever term the accused party might be designated.
Whilst he was upon the subject of the criminal laws, he wished to say a few words on a subject which was intimately connected with the question. It would be in the recollection of the House, that some years ago, a parliamentary commission was appointed, to inquire into the state of the several courts of law, and into the fees and emoluments of the judges. All those venerable and respected individuals submitted cheerfully to the investigation; yet, in the minor and subordinate courts of justice no inquiry had been made respecting the nature and amount of fees and other emoluments of the persons officiating in them. He had heard, and he believed, that great abuses existed in those courts. For instance, the other day, a demand was made for heavy fees, from persons who had actually been acquitted of the crimes with which they had been charged. The House must see the manifest impropriety of tolerating such a monstrous anomaly. So that it would have been mercy to the accused if the judge had found him guilty, because in that case his punishment would have been less by the amount of fees which, as an acquitted man, he was called upon to pay. A man acquitted by a jury of his country, should be free of any such odious impost, and any attempt to punish him, either in his person or his pocket, after that acquittal, was a direct libel on our boasted trial by jury. He was, therefore, strongly inclined to recommend an inquiry into the fees of officers attached to the minor courts of law. The office of sub-sheriff he also considered ought to be inquired into. It was an office with which he was himself very little acquainted. He only knew that, in some counties, the fees amounted to 600 l. or 700 l. a year, and that the situations were eagerly sought for, while the office of sheriff was considered so much the reverse of desirable, that applications were constantly made by
638
gentlemen appointed to be relieved from serving. He would, therefore, should he see occasion, submit a proposition to the House, to inquire into the fees and emoluments attached to the office of sub-sheriff; an appointment with regard to which he should wish to be enlightened.
The office of coroner was also one, in which he conceived improvement might be made. The coroners of England had, in a body, petitioned parliament, praying for an increase of salary, and representing how very inadequately they were paid. He found, however, that although the office of coroner was burthened with so many wants, it was a situation which, somehow or other, gave rise to very considerable competition whenever it became vacant. He, indeed, had heard of instances, in which contests for the situation of coroner had been as expensively carried on as in contested elections for the return of members of parliament. He should be happy to hear, therefore, how it was that coroners were so inadequately paid, and that the office was nevertheless so greedily sought after. The offices of clerk of the peace and clerk of the assize ought also to be investigated, with a view to ascertain the nature and amount of fees attached to such appointment. Without throwing out any insinuation against individuals holding those offices, he wished to know by what authority those fees were demanded. Another office requiring investigation was that of clerk to magistrates. It would also be desirable to ascertain the amount of fees demanded and taken by such persons, and the authority under which they were demanded. Without pointing out particular cases, there were instances enough of the misconduct of magistrates' clerks; and that honourable and independent body, the magistrates of the country, should be careful who they appointed to fill those situations. These points, though not immediately connected with the bills which he meant to move for, were, nevertheless, connected with the due administration of justice, and were therefore points to which the attention of the House should be particularly called.
There might be some individuals who might think that the alterations which he was now suggesting, were founded, after all, more upon theoretical reasoning than practical experience. He had not as yet found, however, that the propositions which he had already submitted to the House,

639
with regard to the improvement of the criminal law had failed of their effect. In proof of which he might mention the bill for the better regulation of juries, which had lately come into operation. He knew it was objected to the measures which he should now have the honour to propose, that if they passed into law it would soon be necessary to come down to parliament with fresh laws to amend the new ones. He had not heard, however, of any such result from the act for the better administration of justice which he introduced last session. He was not aware that the act giving power to magistrates to accept of bail in cases of doubtful felony had not been attended by good effects; on the contrary, he had heard it well spoken of, and he was, therefore, fortified by past experience in anticipating great practical good from the measures which he was about to propose. He certainly had heard of objections to another of his bills, which, if founded in truth or justice, would lead him to disparage his own exertions. The bill which he alluded to had passed last session, and its object was to facilitate the course of justice, by providing that poor persons, who were prosecutors in cases of misdemeanor, should be enabled to seek justice at the public expense. He was not prepared to contend, that the county rate should bear the whole of this burthen, but he thought it but just and proper that prosecutors who had not the means of obtaining justice themselves, should be enabled to do so at the expense of the county in which they lived. It was said that, in the county of Surrey, an enormous expense had been incurred, inconsequence of the endeavours which had been used by the police to discover the perpetrators of an atrocious murder, which was still involved in mystery. The whole of the expense attending that occurrence was said to be the effect of his bill. But his bill had nothing whatever to do with the expense incurred on that occasion; and although he had paid money, on account of the transaction, from the Home-office, yet not a farthing was drawn from the county in consequence of the existence of that bill. To quote another instance of the spirit with which that bill had been treated by some: It was said, that the expense incurred by bringing up witnesses for prosecutions in the last sessions at Westminster, the Old Bailey, and Clerkenwell, were enormous, and considerably
640
disproportioned, when compared with the charges of former years. He found the following charge in print:—"Last year the expense incurred for witnesses to attend Westminster, the Old Bailey, and Clerkenwell, sessions amounted to the sum of 2,343 l., whereas, in the former year, the expense for witnesses was only 1,297 l., the expense this year being nearly double: so much for Mr. Peel's bill." This statement, however, was as untrue as the inference attempted to be drawn from it was unfair. The number of felonies tried at those sessions this year was five hundred and twenty one; and the year before, the number tried was four hundred and six, so that there was only an increase of one hundred and forty five cases; and those were very aggravated cases, in which the prosecutors were of the lowest order, and were consequently obliged to be supported during the time occupied by the trials, in which they were called as witnesses; and after all, the sum which the court admitted for their expenses amounted to no more than 145 l. So far was the expense from being doubled, that it was only the trifling sum which he had just mentioned.
He hoped that the statement into which he had just entered would induce gentlemen to pause before they came to the conclusion, that the alterations which he had made in the criminal laws had tended to increase the expense of administering them. There were some gentlemen, he believed, of opinion, that the law ought to remain as it now was, on account of the expense necessarily incurred in altering it; whilst there were others, who entirely scouted the question of expense, and thought that in his alterations of the law, he had by no means gone far enough. To the latter he would say, that he was not inclined to proceed hastily in experiments on legislation; and to the former, to those he meant who complained of the expense, he would observe, that, by adopting the course of devolving upon single individuals the consideration of particular laws, instead of devolving upon a commission of several individuals the consideration of the whole system of our criminal law, the whole charge to which he had subjected the country by his jury bill, and the other bills which he had introduced in the five years during which he had acted as Secretary of State, did not amount to more than 1,200 l. He declared upon his honour, that he doubted whether so much

641
progress would have been made in the task of consolidating the laws, or whether the labour already performed would have been performed half so well, by a commission consisting of individuals with salaries of 1,500 l. a year, as it had been performed by the individuals who had assisted him for a much slighter remuneration. One advantage attending the quiet and steady course which he had pursued was this— that he had been able to procure the assistance of the judges in the revision of the bills which he had submitted to parliament. They had given the most willing attention to the various new clauses which had been introduced into those bills by the learned gentleman who had prepared them: and he had received from them all the most valuable assistance, because he had not overburthened them with too many applications at once. Some gentlemen might think it an easy task to form a criminal code; but he would appeal to the noble lord opposite (Althorp), who had undertaken to consolidate the law upon one subject only, whether the difficulties in detail of such a measure were not infinitely greater than would appear at first sight to any person who was unacquainted with them.
He must also say, that he had another motive for proceeding gradually and slowly in this matter. It was necessary to carry along with him all the instruments engaged in the administration of justice; for if too many changes were suddenly made in the laws of daily and ordinary occurrence, and if what was declared law was not executed well, no advantage would result to the country. He was aware, that a more splendid fame might be acquired by attaching his name to the introduction of a new code of law, as had been done elsewhere; but greater advantage to the country would be gained by convincing the people, who were justly attached to their ancient institutions, that the circumstances which had given rise to them, were either altered or gone by; that they could be amended and improved; and that the rust and impurity which they had acquired, by the lapse of time and carelessness of legislation, could be removed without injuring their substance or impairing their strength. The House would confer greater benefits on the people by reconciling them to the improvements which it sanctioned, and by showing them that those improvements could be made
642
without any practical inconvenience, than by attempting too much at once in the shape of innovation, and by leading them away by splendid illusions of general improvement. He would be content, if by his humble efforts, a gradual reform could be effected in our criminal law, without leading to any great practical inconvenience: and he trusted that, so far from dissatisfaction being excited by the attempts of the House to accommodate ancient usages to the necessities of modern times, the attachment of the people to those usages would be increased, by their being convinced that the foundations of those usages were only widened to receive additional strength, and that it was wiser to amend them where they were defective, than to maintain them steadily because they were antiquated imperfections. He would now move, "That leave be given to bring in a bill for consolidating and amending the laws in England, relative to Larceny, Burglary, and Robbery."
Lord Althorpreturned thanks to the right hon. Secretary, for the great progress which he had already made in amending the criminal code of the country. He agreed with the right hon. gentleman, that it was necessary to proceed cautiously in the task which he had undertaken, inasmuch as nothing was more dangerous than inconsiderate legislation upon matters of a criminal nature. He admitted, that the increasing amount of county rates for some years past was a subject worthy the serious consideration of every gentleman who stood in the situation which he filled as a county member. The reason why the expenses of prosecutions at the quarter sessions was less than those at the assizes was, because the first underwent the revision of the magistrates who had to pay them. He trusted that the right hon. gentleman would consider whether some measure might not be devised to assimilate the scale of expenses at the assizes to that used at the quarter sessions. He was fully convinced that the laws relative to malicious injury to property required amendment; inasmuch as they had filled our gaols with criminals for comparatively trifling and insignificant offences. He also thought that the laws relative to poaching had been recently applied to many cases which were not intended to be affected by them. In conclusion, he intreated the right hon. gentleman to accept his tribute of applause for the benefit which he

643
had conferred upon the country, by bringing these questions fairly under the consideration of parliament.
Sir George Chetwyndsaid, that having for many years been in the habit of superintending the administration of the laws as a magistrate, he could but express his gratitude to the right hon. gentleman, not only for the improvements which he had already introduced, but for those which he was about to introduce into our criminal jurisprudence.
Mr. Hobhousesaid, that the present was one of those occasions in which it was the duty of all those who felt strongly, to attempt to give utterance to the feelings under which they laboured. In all the admirable address which the House had just heard from the lips of the right hon. Secretary there was only one part to which he was inclined to make any exception, and that was the part in which the right hon. gentleman had told them, that it was possible that by pursuing a different course from that which he had followed, a more splendid fame might have been acquired. Upon that point alone, he begged leave to express his dissent. The right hon. gentleman was mistaken. A more slpendid fame than that which he had already earned could not be acquired, and the right hon. gentleman must have seen the earnest of that fame, which he would enjoy to the latest posterity, in the applauses which he had already received from men of all parties in the country— applauses which stamped on his exertions a reputation, which no future act of the right hon. gentleman would be able to destroy [cheers]. The right hon. gentleman had to deal with a subject which many great and good men, who had gone before him, had attempted, but in vain, to remedy. Those who preceded the right hon. gentleman had, however, only the will. Fortunately for himself, and fortunately for his country, the right hon. gentleman had likewise the power and, with the power and the will combined, it was impossible that he should not, if he lived, see the best results emanate out of his exertions. If one of the persons to whom he alluded— if one of those great minds, who had formed plans for the good of mankind—if the man who once represented his constituents in that House, and held the seat which he now so unworthily held—if sir Samuel Romilly, who had so often regretted the state of the criminal law, and breathed
644
so many ardent prayers for its alteration and amendment—if he could now look upon what had been done, and sec the promise of still greater and more important reformations likely to be fulfilled, he would, indeed, exclaim, that he had not lived in vain. If he saw seated in the chair of legal reformation, which it had been his ambition to fill, a gentleman so worthy to occupy his place, he would willingly resign into his hand, all the great plans he had formed for the benefit of mankind—and the reformation of the criminal code. That there must be jarring opinions upon changes of such magnitude, every man would allow; but when the test had been applied—when it was seen that what had been done was done successfully, and that the means were sufficient to the end—when it was proved that the alterations were as wisely conceived, as the mode of carrying them into effect was practically beneficial, he could not but implore the right hon. gentleman not to pause in his career, but, by pursuing the same wise, temperate, and vigilant, course, consummate the glorious work which he had undertaken. It had often been his unfortunate duty to convey to the House the sentiments of his constituents, when they were not in approval of the conduct pursued by the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues: he, therefore, thought it a happiness to have to convey to the right hon. gentleman the sentiments of the same body, when they were loudly expressed in his favour. What he was going to mention was, perhaps, hardly worth the right hon. gentleman's notice, still he trusted that the right hon. gentleman would not despise it. It was a custom in the city which he had the honour to represent, for the constituent body to have an anniversary meeting with their representatives; in which the constituent body communicated to those representatives the sentiments on which they thought that their representatives ought to act, and which were held up to them as worthy of admiration. He hoped the right hon. gentleman would not think that he was obtruding an improper fact upon his attention, when he told him that, upon every such recent anniversary, his name had been held up as among those which were considered to be ranked with the benefactors of their country. He saw the chancellor of the Exchequer smile: he could not help it—there were certain prejudices to be overcome. On many ques-

645
tions the right hon. Secretary had pursued a course which was not very congenial to the feelings of the electors of Westminster; but, on this subject, they only saw in him a reformer of great abuses, and a man who was doing all he could to benefit his country. He owed the House an apology for introducing this matter into the discussion: but he trusted that, insignificant as it might appear to some members, it would encourage the right hon. Secretary not to delay in his praise-worthy career. He anticipated for the right hon. gentleman a more splendid fame than the modesty of the right hon. gentleman would permit him to anticipate for himself. He had laid the basis for being a great man, by showing himself to be a good one [Cheers].
Mr. Sykesobjected to the power given by certain bills to convict offenders by summary process before one magistrate. As a magistrate he did not like the responsibility thus thrown upon him; and, as a man, he would prefer that the conviction should take place before two magistrates. In all attempts to improve the criminal justice of the country, attention should be paid to the county rates, which were now increasing, in all parts of the country, to an alarming extent. Indeed, in one place with which he was acquainted, the county rates were greater in amount than the poor-rates were thirty years ago. In conclusion, he applauded the right hon. Secretary for proceeding, step by step, in his attempts to amend the Criminal jurisprudence of his country.
Mr. Crippssaid, that it was unnecessary for him to offer more than one word on the excellence of the measures which had been proposed by the right hon. Secretary. The improvements which he had already made in our criminal law were above all praise; as were also those which he had now suggested. In reply to the observations of the hon. member for Hull, on the impropriety of giving one magistrate a summary power of conviction, he observed, that it was necessary that one magistrate should have that power, as there were many parts of the country in which it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to get two magistrates. The increase in the county rates was occasioned by two causes very dissimilar—the increase of crime, of road-making and bridge-making throughout the country. He was extremely glad that the subject had attracted the notice of the right hon. Secretary.
Mr. Batleyreturned his thanks to the right hon. gentleman for the admirable speech which he had that evening delivered. He was quite convinced that the comprehensive plans disclosed in that speech would have the effect of diminishing the amount of capital punishment. He would not trouble the House further than by saying, that the right hon. gentleman had achieved for himself a permanent fame, and that his exertions were calculated to produce the most salutary results on the morals of society.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, he should be guilty of great injustice to the House, if he did not briefly express the gratitude which he felt for the general support which his proposed measures had received. It was most gratifying to him to observe a complete oblivion of all party and personal feeling, when the object before the House was an endeavour to effect a great public benefit. Such a support was the most honourable testimony that could be borne to the utility of his efforts, and the uprightness of his intentions. He would not, on the present occasion, make any observations on the subject which had been alluded to by an hon. gentleman opposite; he meant the melancholy increase of crime. He had, however, caused comparative tables to be drawn up, and he was sorry to observe, but he owed it to justice to declare, that the comparison of the present with former periods was not satisfactory. Perhaps, however, the overgrown amount of the population might be adduced as one of the reasons which produced that unfavourable result. That, however, this subject had not escaped his attention, and that he meant to endeavour to apply some remedy for the evil, must be obvious to the hon. gentleman, as he had given notice of a motion for an inquiry into the state of the police within ten miles of the metropolis. When that motion came forward, the whole question could be discussed.
Leave was given to bring in the several bills.