CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT. (Hansard, 29 April 1834)

The Lord Chancellor

moved, that this Bill be recommitted. He did so in order to introduce certain Amendments into the 202 Bill, chiefly of a verbal nature. One of them, however, was important, as it would save expense and trouble. The object of it was, to avoid the necessity of issuing a fresh Commission for each Sessions. He anticipated the happiest results from this measure, and he was glad to say, that it had met with the warm approbation of the Corporation, the important Corporation, of the city of London. He had gladly availed himself of the advantage of their offering suggestions, and had adopted all those suggestions but one. He adhered to his plan of naming the parishes included within the jurisdiction, instead of taking a measurement of so many miles round the Post-office, for the distance might often be a matter of dispute, when the limits of a parish would not be doubtful. The city of London had offered every facility for passing this measure; and with respect to the offices, the abolition of which it would occasion, he wished it to be understood, that he only now carried through this measure on the distinct avowal that just regard should be had to the interests of those whose interests were affected, and he felt the most complete confidence, that they would be properly attended to in the House of Commons, as had been done on a former occasion, to the complete satisfaction of the officers of the Court of Chancery, whose offices had been dealt with in this way. This Bill provided for a population of 1,800,000 in the centre of the metropolitan district. He might mention, that he was indebted to an eminent antiquary for the discovery, that three or four centuries ago, the criminals from the other side of the river—that is, from Kent and Surrey, and also those from Essex—were tried at the Old Bailey, although the venues were laid in the respective counties.