Sitting of 15 April 1828

TURNPIKE TRUSTS BILL.
Mr. Littletonsaid, he rose to submit to the House
1446
the Resolutions, of which he had given notice, on this subject. He had brought forward Resolutions last year with a similar object; namely, that of relieving the parties from the heavy fees and charges now imposed on the renewal of Turnpike Trust acts. He would briefly state the grounds on which he felt himself entitled to call on the House to agree to the abolition of these fees and charges. He did not share the opinion of those gentlemen who held that fees on private bills should be altogether abolished. He believed that fees were generally advantageous to the public; as he was certain that in many cases they were necessary to protect property, and prevent the undue consumption of the time of that House. But he would not agree to continue the fees on the renewal of Turnpike Trust-bills. It had already been the subject of discussion in two select committees. The latter of these had been appointed at his own instance, the session before the last; and he could not express himself so concisely as in the terms of the first paragraph of their Report [The hon. gentleman then read the passage]. The committee appointed in 1821, on the motion of his hon. friend (sir Davies Gilbert), to inquire generally into the fees taken on private bills, agreed to recommend the abolition of fees on the renewal of Turnpike-bills, though in every other case they considered the retention of the fees a matter of public importance. The recommendation of this committee had, however, not been carried into effect, and the heavy fees to which Turnpike-bills were subject were still exacted. Those fees were double what were required in other instances, such, for example, as a Naturalization-bill, and were, in many cases, raised to treble the amount of the private bills; indeed they were sometimes increased to an indefinite extent. The charges had been so excessive, that they had been matter of complaint throughout the country. The present system of fees could not go on without some change. The whole mortgage debt of the Turnpike trusts in England, within the last two or three years, was 4,474,530 l., and the interest overdue amounted to 500,581 l. In Wales, the debt was 238,168 l., and the interest 34,078 l. In Scotland, the debt was 1,327,946 l., and the interest 263,975 l., making altogether a total of 6,839,278 l. This was independent of the

1447
great annual charge for making and repairing roads throughout the United Kingdom. The question before the House was, whether, under these circumstances, they ought not to make less frequent and less onerous, the necessity of applying to parliament for the renewal of these trusts. He had received a variety of communications, as to the grievance of fees on the renewal of Turnpike trusts. He found that, in many instances, the trusts were breaking down under the weight of their debts. In England, Wales, and Scotland, the whole receipts of the trusts for two years would be insufficient to meet the expense of their renewal, if it recurred, as now, once in every seventeen years. This charge could only be adequately met by increasing the tolls. The ordinary amount of fees on a Turnpike-bill was about 148 l., of which 83 l. were exacted in that House, and 65 l. in the House of Lords. The average amount of the items in fifteen bills of costs, for soliciting Turnpike-bills by Mr. Dorington, in 1826, was in the House of Commons 94 l. and in the House of Lords 64 l. The average cost of printing was 26 l. 5s.; and the whole charge in both Houses amounted, on the average, to 184 l. 12 s. But these bills were all of the most favourable description in point of cost. In a letter he had received from Devonshire, a gentleman stated that he had solicited three bills on which he had paid fees to the amount respectively of 278 l. 10 s., 280 l. 10 s., and 273 l. 8s. It was unnecessary to detain the House longer with statements of this kind, which, he was aware, were open to the answer, that the expense was caused by the including of a great many districts, and by the separate application of the funds. But he would refer to one case among the poorer counties—that of Glamorganshire, where the whole expenses had been more than 1,000 l. He knew there was a great variety of trusts in this case, but he knew also that this county was very poor, and the charge he considered as excessive. The receipt of a small trust, in the neighbourhood of London, was frequently greater than the whole receipts of such a county as Glamorgan. The remedy he proposed was stated in the resolutions he intended to move. The first resolution was, "That after the present session of parliament, all bills, which, among other matters, should be for the renewal, or repeal and renewal
1448
of Turnpike trusts, should be exempted from the payment of all fees now chargeable according to the table of fees of that House." This measure would be advantageous to the trustees of the Turnpike roads, not only to the extent of the fees saved, but in another material respects The very existence of those fees rendered it necessary for the parties to attend twice before the House. Otherwise, as in the case of Inclosure bills, the opposing party might turn round upon them and say, they had not complied with the Standing Orders of the House, by not attending in the first instance. But if the House relieved them from the payment of fees, there would be no reason why the attendance of the Solicitor and witnesses should not be dispensed with altogether on the petition. This alone would be a great saving, where the parties, came from distant places. The second resolution accordingly stated, that committees on the petition should be dispensed with, and the parties bound to give their attendance only on the committee on the bill. By this arrangement these bills would be reduced to the same conduct as public acts. By the next resolution, for the future, the expense of engrossing and printing these bills would be borne by the public; but if, in any instance, the Standing Orders were not complied with, the expense should be charged to the parties. He was aware that, under colour of these resolutions, parties might be induced sometimes to make extensive alterations of the line of the road. He proposed to meet this objection by a provision, by which these bills would be confined to a limited extent, while ample scope would be allowed for improvement. The last resolution went to extend the usual term of twenty-one years to the term of thirty-one years; the result of which would be, the saving of one half of the expense of these bills. If the House could be induced to adopt this resolution, the total saving would, on an average, including the abolition of fees amount to 234 l.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that with respect to the question of fees generally, he would only remark, that the propositions of his hon. friend applied to the principle on which fees were taken on all private matters brought before that House, and he thought it would be well for the House, before it acquiesced in

1449
these resolutions, to consider what effect they would have on the other branches of private business that came before it. Those fees were appropriated to public objects, by acts of parliament, and if these resolutions had the effect of reducing the amount of the fund so raised, it would be incumbent on the House to provide other means to defray the expenses heretofore paid out of this fund. He was inclined to say, that where the bill was merely to renew a trust about to expire, that would be a fair case for consideration; and, if he did not mistake, by a resolution of the House, bills to renew expiring trusts were already subject only to the lowest class of fees.
Sir C. Burrellapproved of the principle of the resolutions, and quoted an instance where a very important road in the western part of Sussex was obliged to be neglected, in consequence of the great expense that would be incurred in procuring a bill to alter the provisions of the act now in being.
Sir T. Lethbridgeexpressed his approbation of the resolutions. It appeared to him that Turnpike-bills, though treated as private bills, were, in fact, bills of a public nature.
Mr. R. Gordonsaid, it was exceedingly unfair, that any portion of the expense attendant on the furtherance of public business should be defrayed out of fees paid by private individuals. The House was not perhaps aware, that there was no charge for engrossing public bills; the whole expense was charged on private bills. Why such a system should be adopted he knew not. Certainly it was very unjust.
Mr. H. Drummondcomplained that the existing system pressed very heavily on Scotland. In some instances the whole income of a Turnpike trust was swallowed up in procuring the renewal of a bill.
Mr. Baringcould not see how any resolutions of that House could effect the object contemplated by the hon. member for Staffordshire; since the fees complained of might, and most probably would, still be exacted in the other House. The best way to remedy the evil would be by the introduction of a bill.
Mr. Littletoncould not conceive, even if the Lords did not choose to give up those fees, why the Commons should abstain from taking a step that would be satisfactory to the country. It was very probable, if the Commons agreed to the
1450
resolutions that the Lords would follow their example.
The further consideration of the resolutions was postponed till Monday.

OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON BILL.
The Marquis of Lansdowne The Marquis of Lansdowne moved the order of the day for the third reading of the bill to consolidate the laws respecting Offences against the Person.
Earl Greysaid, he had no objection to the passing of the bill, but he rose to object to one of its clauses. Their lordships would find in the clause directing the punishment for the crime of murder, the usual punishment of the dissection of the criminal's body was omitted, and power was given to the judge of ordering the criminal to be hung in chains. He was certainly not one of those who on common occasions contended for severity of punishment. It had, indeed, been remarked, that the law of this country was much too sanguinary. The punishment of death was unhappily extended to many offences of an inferior nature to the crime of murder; and the distinction made by dissecting the murderer's body appeared to him to give an additional terror against

1443
the commission of that greatest offence next to treason, and it was for the interest of the community that the distinction which had hitherto prevailed between that and minor offences should be kept up. That no effect would be produced on the individual murderer, who had made up his mind to the completion of the horrible crime, by the punishment and the consequences which would follow the act, he must perhaps, admit; but still the additional punishment of dissection had operated, by a salutary terror on the community, to keen up that horror of the crime of murder for which the English people had hitherto been distinguished. The ground on which the alteration in the law was now proposed was, according to the statements of the petitions which had been presented to their lordships, the great difficulty which existed in procuring subjects for dissection, by which the science of surgery was impeded, to the great detriment of the community, whose interest it was to have surgeons properly educated. He believed that that difficulty was complained of with some foundation, but he was of opinion, that that difficulty was not likely to be diminished by public discussion in their lordships' House. That difficulty was, however, the ground upon which the clause had been introduced; because it was presumed, that the dissecting the body of the criminal had the effect of a stigma, or acted as an aggravation of punishment on the feelings of society, which increased the dislike in people to give up the bodies of their relations for dissection after death. That might be the case; but their lordships would see that it was purely theoretical and speculative, and that there was great doubt whether it was founded in truth; and if theory and speculation were put in the balance, in contradistinction to established fact, the one could not be considered in any degree of comparison with the other. He did, therefore, wish their lordships to reconsider the clause, and alter it; and if that were the opinion of their lordships, he should suggest, that they leave the punishment of murder as it now stood by law. About thirty years ago, a bill of a very different character was introduced in the other House of Parliament, which went to extend the punishment of dissection after death to burglaries and highway robberies. He remembered that that bill was most ably and eloquently opposed by
1444
Mr. Serjeant Adair, who stated, that it was of importance to confine that aggravation of punishment to the crime of murder; because it had the salutary effect of increasing that general terror which existed in this country against that species of crime. On these grounds he opposed the extension of the punishment of dissection to other crimes than murder. And, as the converse of that position, he thought it not expedient to continue the clause as it stood, which removed almost the only distinction which existed between the punishments of the most aggravated and the minor offences, to which the punishment of death was unhappily affixed. Hanging the murderer in chains, as provided by the present bill, would not operate in the same salutary way on the minds of the people. He had thought it his duty to submit his doubts to their lordships, and to suggest the expunging of that part of the clause which took away the punishment of dissection, on grounds theoretical and speculative.
Lord Tenterdenconcurred in the sentiments expressed by the noble earl. When the bill was committed a first time, the noble marquis proposed the alteration in the law now alluded to. It was then understood, that he had no objection to the clause, though he desired another opportunity for further consideration on the subject, when the bill should be recommitted. Upon that occasion he happened not to be present, and had lost the opportunity of expressing his opinion. If it were not now too late to make an amendment, he should be desirous that the clause should be restored to its original shape. The object of omitting the punishment from the bill was, because it attached a stigma to the practice of dissection, which, if done away with, would give greater facility for a supply of subjects, and thereby promote the science of surgery. Whether that would be the case he had great doubt; and when it was a matter of doubt, he should be unwilling that any alteration should be made in the law as it now stood, which law he hoped would serve as an additional terror to induce persons, if any thing could induce them, from the commission of that most horrible of crimes. He perfectly agreed in what the noble earl had said, that when a man had made up his mind to the commission of murder, no consideration of the punishment could divert him from it; but

1445
he thought that when the first idea arose in the mind of the commission of that unlawful act, it might be checked, from a consideration of the disgraceful punishment of dissection; and if such a circumstance were only to take place once in twenty years, the law would have proved beneficial.
The Marquis of Lansdownesaid, that the ground on which the punishment of dissection was omitted in the clause, was the statement of persons in the surgical profession, who represented that they would rather remain without the assistance of that small supply of bodies which the law afforded them, if by that means a stigma would be removed, by which removal they hoped to obtain a sufficient number of bodies for purposes of science, without being obliged to make use of a system, which had the effect of exciting crime in another direction: he alluded to the practice of body-snatchers, a practice which placed men in a situation, by which they were gradually led on to the commission of other crimes. So long as the present law afforded the only supply of bodies for surgeons, a road would be kept continually open to crime. As long as the supply of subjects was inadequate to the purposes of instruction, the medical student would be driven out of this country to complete his education. It could not, however, be an idle theory, that condemning the murderer to be dissected operated to prevent people from giving their bodies, after death, for the same purpose. As long as it was thought necessary to preserve this distinction between murder and other crimes, by adding dissection to death, so long would innocent persons have an abhorrence to submit to what was regarded as a great punishment. No persons would voluntarily expose themselves or their friends to that which was inflicted on murderers; though it was of great importance to science that persons should, after death, be dissected. He would not, however, persevere; and it was yet quite time for his noble friend to move his amendment.
The bill was read a third time, and, with earl Grey's amendment, passed.