Sitting of 28 February 1828

POLICE OF THE METROPOLIS, AND THE DISTRICTS ADJOINING THERETO.
Mr. Secretary Peelrose and said:—
Mr. Speaker; I am desirous of calling the attention of the House to a subject, which at first sight, perhaps, may appear to be limited in its application, and local in its objects; but which, in point of fact, is connected with considerations of the utmost importance to the well-being of the country. I allude, Sir, to the increase of

785
crime which has lately taken place in the metropolis, and the districts immediately adjoining thereto; and to the state of those establishments of police, and to other establishments of a similar nature, which are connected with the prevention of crime, and with the detection of offenders. The greater part of those whom I have now the honour of addressing may recollect that, at an early period of the last session, I gave notice of my intention to propose to the House, to institute an inquiry into the state of the Police in the Metropolis. The circumstances which led to my retirement from office, prevented my then instituting the inquiry which I wished to pursue; and after Easter it was too late to allow the persons concerned in the administration of public affairs, to prosecute any active or efficient inquiry into the subject. A noble lord, the member for Bandon (lord John Russell), gave notice of a motion upon the subject, and at his instance a committee was appointed, which had for its object an inquiry into the causes which had led to the increase of crime in the country generally. That committee prosecuted its inquiries for some time, and made a report upon the subject, which contains a great deal of very useful information, and which has laid the foundation of further inquiries, which I trust it is the intention of the noble lord to re-institute in the course of the present session. The inquiries of the committee to which I allude were directed to three objects. First, the cause of the increase of crime in the Agricultural Districts; secondly, the cause of the increase of crime in the Manufacturing Districts; and, thirdly, the cause of the increase of crime in the Metropolis. The only subject, the only branch of these three divisions, which the committee had, during the last session, leisure to inquire into, was the first of the investigations. No evidence was taken as to the cause of the increase of crime in the manufacturing districts: no evidence was taken as to the cause of the increase of crime in the metropolis.' These last two subjects were not at all gone into by the committee, for the reason I have stated.
Now, Sir, I feel, when about to propose a Committee of Inquiry into the state of the Police, and into the state of those establishments which are connected with the suppression of crime, that all inquiry would be necessarily imperfect, unless the House devolves upon that committee the duty of inquiring into the third branch of the sub-
786
ject; namely, the causes of the increase of crime in the metropolis, and the districts adjoining thereto. I therefore feel some satisfaction at having, in the motion which I have now to submit to the House, obtained the entire assent of the noble Lord, who originally proposed that inquiry, and who, probably, will renew the investigation which he has so happily commenced. In moving for a committee to inquire into the causes of the increase in the number of commitments and convictions in London and its vicinity, Sir, I most heartily wish that it was not in my power to adduce satisfactory evidence of the necessity of instituting such an inquiry. Unfortunately, the evidence of such necessity is too plain, too frequent, and too important, to have escaped any man who has given the slightest attention to the subject. Any person who has the least information with respect to the state of many parts of the districts which border on the metropolis, must be perfectly satisfied that the security for property, and even for person—but particularly the security for property, is not what it ought to be in every well-regulated society; it is not the protection which every subject who gives allegiance to the state has a right to expect. This inference is founded not only upon the experience of all who reside in the neighbourhood of the metropolis, and who have personal knowledge, and correct information, as to the state of many parts of those districts, but it is also drawn from the returns which are prepared at the office of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and which have already been laid upon the table of this House. These returns, Sir, afford a most convincing proof that there has been, within late years, that increase in the number of committals and convictions for crimes in London and Middlesex, which alone affords sufficient proof, not only of the policy, but of the absolute necessity of some inquiry into the subject. Speaking of the causes of the increase of crime in London and its vicinity, one observation offers itself with respect to the increase of crime in the country generally. I must postpone this branch of the subject, until I have disposed of that which I am now upon. Sir, the returns to which I allude, contain an account for each year of the number of commitments and convictions to the prisons of London and Middlesex—an account of crimes committed on the population of that part of the kingdom. From these returns the numbers appear as follow:—

787

In the year 1820

2,773

1821

2,480

1822

2,539

1823

2,503

So that in these four years, there is no very material variation in the amount of the number of committals, and there was a reduction in the number in the year 1823 of 270, as compared with the year 1820. In the year 1824, there began to be an increase in the number of commitments; and this has gone on progressively until the end of 1827. I mentioned that in 1823 the total number of committals for criminal offences (for I exclude slight cases, such as assaults, offences under the Vagrant act, and all crimes of a petty nature, and speak only of higher crimes), was 2,503. The number of criminal commitments in London and Middlesex was,

In 1824

2,621

1825

2,902

1826

3,457

1827

3,384

So that in 1826 the increase was rapid; and, although the number of committals in 1827 was less by seventy-six than those of the year immediately preceding, still the increase of the former years was so very large, that the small decrease in 1827, as compared with the year 1826, can be no reason why the House should object or hesitate to institute the inquiry I have the honour to propose.
It is some satisfaction, in looking at this part of the question to be able to inform the House, that the increase of the number of offences is not an increase of those crimes which are of a more aggravated nature; there is no increase in the number of cases of personal violence, of murder, of assaults upon the person; the increase is solely in the number of those offences connected with property. If we compare the total number of commitments in 1826 with the number in 1820, we shall find the increase to be 684; for in 1820 the numbers were 2773, and in 1826 they were 3457. If we compare the numbers committed in these two years, we shall find that the increase in the cases of simple larceny, are more than sufficient to account for the increase in the total numbers. In 1820, the number of persons committed for simple larceny was 1,384. The committals of the same nature in 1826 were 2,118, being an increase of 734. The total increase of the general number is 684, which shows a decrease in the other species of offences: but,
788
with respect to simple larceny, you will find an increase upon the whole.
The considerations connected with this part of the subject appeared to me of such immense importance, that a short time before my retirement from office I took considerable pains for the purpose of procuring information as to the amount of crime in foreign countries compared with the amount of population, in several large districts and towns in those countries. I have obtained some returns from foreign countries, which, however, it will be difficult to bring into comparison with those of our own country, because, in the former, the classification is different from that in the latter. The returns which I have procured refer to Berlin, Vienna, Antwerp, Paris, Brussels, Hamburgh, and several others of the largest cities and towns of Europe. I have also procured similar returns from the principal towns and cities at home such as London, Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow, Dublin, and Edinburgh. I will allow that such documents furnish rather subjects of curiosity than guides from which any positive inference can be drawn with safety; but I have this morning selected some remarkable facts from a work by M. Peyronnet who was at the head of the police in Paris. It is limited to the year 1825, but it is drawn up in so admirable a form, and the subjects so ably treated, that it is well worthy the attention of all those who feel inclined to turn their attention to such matters, either in this House or in our criminal courts. It enters minutely into details of the ages of the criminals, the nature of their crimes, the place and time of their commission, and the period at which the cases were tried and finally disposed of, and distinguishes crimes against the person from crimes against property. It is exceedingly curious to observe the comparative state of crime in different districts. I this morning compared the crimes and population of Paris with the crimes and population of Middlesex. The last census of the population of Paris was taken in 1817; but I believe it is admitted upon authority, that between that period and the year 1820, the population of Paris has not increased in any material degree. In 1817, the exact amount of the population within the barriers is stated to have been 657,152 souls. Adding to this the inhabitants of prisons, forty-three military establishments, and the occupiers of hotels (of which there are six

789
hundred and ninety-two within the barriers), there is an addition of 56,794, I making the number amount to about 714,000 persons. Adding to these the population in the environs of Paris amounting to 107,740 persons, the whole population amounts to 821,706. In Paris they have three classes of criminal tribunals. They have; first, the Courd'Assises, which takes cognizance only of the higher description; secondly, they have the Police Correctionelle, which takes cognizance of a lighter character; and, thirdly, they have the simple Police, which is presided over by the Judges de Paix. The second tribunals can inflict punishment to the extent of five years' improvement; whereas the juges de paix cannot inflict punishment for more than five days, or a fine of more than from one to fifteen francs. It is not easy, therefore, looking at the operation of these three tribunals, to make a comparison between the relative degree of crime in Paris and in London. In 1823, the number of accused brought before the Cour d'Assises amounted to 692; in 1824, the number amounted to 843; and in 1825, to 804. So that, taking this average we find, that the proportion of accused amounts to one in every 1022 inhabitants. This comparison is made with reference to the entire population of the department of the Seine.—There are also some extraordinary statements which shew the great difference which exists as to the nature as well as to the extent of crime in different districts. It appears that in large and populous places, out of every hundred offences, ninety are offences against property, and ten against the person; while in thinly-inhabited districts—in Corsica, for instance—out of each hundred offences, seventy-six are against the person, and twenty-four against property. This is a very curious fact; but it is not easy to draw any decisive conclusions from it. It does not, however, appear, that where large bodies are congregated together, property is most the object of attack; while in thinly-peopled districts, such as agricultural counties, offences arise principally out of malicious feelings, and other motives of a personal nature, and are for the greater part offences against the person. In some part of France the number of accused are as one in a thousand, while in other parts of France they are as one to 27,342. These are the extremes of crime in that country.
790
I now turn to the population of London and Middlesex, and I find that in 1821 it amounted to 1,144,531, viz.

London

125,434

Westminster

182,085

Middlesex

837,012

1,144,531

The average of criminal commitments for the three years 1823, 1824, and 1825, was 2,700, or one person in 423. Whereas, in the last two years, the average of criminal commitments was 3,400, out of a population of 1,300,000 persons, or one person in 380. From this it would appear, that the comparison I have made is in favour of Paris; but I do not believe that it is so in point of fact, seeing that the returns of crime are made only from the highest criminal tribunals.—If hon. members looked to the numbers brought before the Police Correctionelle, they would perceive the difference. In 1825 there were no less than 4,432 persons brought before this tribunal, for such offences as combinations, swindling, defamation, and assaults. It also includes the offence of simple theft; and, of the above number, 1,206 were accused of this last offence. If I add this number to the 800 I have already mentioned, it would make 2,000, which, in a population of 821,000 persons, amounts to one person in 410. So that, in point of fact, there is no material difference in the comparative state of crime in London and Paris in the years 1823, 1824, and 1825. Unfortunately, in the last year, 1827, there was a great increase in the number of offenders, as the following document will show:—
The number of criminal offenders committed for trial to the different gaols in England and Wales has progressively very much increased within the last eighteen years. In the year 1809 they amounted to 5,146, only. In 1826 they had increased to 16,147; and, during the year 1827, the number has still further increased to 17,921 or 1774 more than the number in the preceding year.
In the last year the increase in forty-four counties amounts to 1,931. There is, however, a decrease in six counties (and in Bristol) of 157, which makes the nett increase of 1774 as above. In two counties the numbers in the two last years are the same.
The numbers in 1827, as compared with the preceding year, have increased thus—

791
Convictions 1,469; acquittals 141; no bills found, &c. 164: total increase 1,774. Sentenced to death 326; transportation 462; imprisonment 681: total increase of convictions 1,469.
The number of persons convicted of, and charged with, burglary, has increased in the several counties 96 in the last year, excepting in (London and) Middlesex, the number therein is rather less than the preceding year. The number of persons convicted of, and charged with, the following-crimes, has also much increased during the lastyear—namely, house-breaking 132; cattle, horse, and sheep, stealing 139; forgery 44; coining 13; robbery of the person 26; larceny from the person 26; embezzlement of property of their employers 10; frauds 53; receiving stolen goods 126; offences under lord Ellenborough's act 35; and offences under the game-laws 102.
Sir, I have to beg pardon of the House for entering into these details [hear, hear!] I am aware that they are subjects more peculiarly fitted for the attention of the committee; but, upon a question of such importance, I acknowledge I am anxious to furnish the House with all the information I can, in order to enable it to adopt a sounder system than exists at present upon this question. The objects which I propose for the consideration of the committee, are the causes of the increase of crime and the state of the Police of the metropolis and its vicinity. I am sure that the noble lord, who last year introduced one branch of this subject, would, if called upon, find it difficult at once to decide upon the causes of the increase of crime at present. For my own part, I consider that it is to be attributed, in some measure, to the exposed and insecure state in which property is placed in many parts of the metropolis, and to the facilities which are afforded of removing it from one part of the country to another—in a word, to the increased means of committing and concealing the commission of an offence, and to the increased ingenuity of those who live by preying upon their neighbours. A person who thinks proper to exercise his ingenuity in this way has better opportunities of seizing on property than its owner has of properly securing it. I must confess that I am not very sanguine with respect to the benefits to be derived by this committee. I much fear that the noble lord who took so active a part on a former
792
occasion, and who, I hope and trust, will again devote his time and attention to the subject, will find that the evils complained of have a much deeper root than a want of employment. It will, I have no doubt, befound that those evils are produced by different causes in different districts. In agricultural counties, one cause of the increase of crime will be found to be the Game-laws. This is a subject which no doubt calls for inquiry; but the more I look into the subject, the more I feel convinced how unsafe it is to rely on any one cause, as the origin of the evils of which we complain. And sure I am, that any man who looked, to the Game-laws as a main course of the increase of crime, would act under a delusion. Let hon. members look to the increase in counties which are not game counties, and they will perceive that the evil must have its origin in other causes. The Game-laws are, I repeat it, one cause; and one which is a fair object of inquiry: but we must also look into the many other causes which I have no doubt will be found to exist. Let me ask for a moment, what effect the Game-laws can have upon the increase of crime in the metropolis? It would be absurd to imagine such a thing.
Amongst those other causes which appear to me to bear upon the general increase of crime in a far stronger degree than the state of the Game-laws, is the state and operation of the Poor-laws in some of the counties. In many counties, it is well known, that the rate of wages is so low as to require that the deficiency should be paid out of the Poor-rates. This I consider to be a most injurious practice; it operates to destroy that independence of mind which is the foundation of moral character, and it is still farther objectionable as a most expensive and circuitous mode of payment. It is probable that the committee will find the cause I have just stated to be of much more extensive operation than many of those which it was usual to assign. At the same time I much doubt, Sir, whether this effect of the Poor-laws will be found to have operated in this way in London and Middlesex; on the contrary, I fear that the increase of crime in these districts will be found to have arisen from causes upon which I fear to speculate, and upon which it will, perhaps, be better that I should reserve my opinions until an opportunity presents itself of entering fully into the proposed inquiry. I am decidedly of opinion, how-

793
ever, that we can, by a speedy inquiry, apply some remedy though not a complete one—and the sooner we set about that inquiry the better. An amendment of the police system, although it cannot prevent the evils we complain of, may yet go far towards correcting them. But while I express this opinion, I must confess that I despair of being able to place our police upon a general footing of uniformity; I cannot hope to take St. Paul's as a centre, and have a radius of ten miles, in which our police could be able to act in unison. Let the House but consider for a moment, that the metropolis consists of three divisions—Southwark, London, and Westminster. Those distinct and discordant jurisdictions tend to produce any effect rather than the decrease of crime. The worst too of it is, that any interference with these jurisdictions, say, for instance, that of London, will hardly fail to be met with jealousy. I observe that the worthy alderman opposite (Wood) shakes his head at this observation, and I hope I may infer from the motion that the city of London, of which he is a representative, is not unwilling to permit an interference in the regulation of its police. I hope I may infer from it, that he is prepared to give up the privileges claimed by the city of London on this subject. [Alderman Wood said, across the table, "I do not think any such concession necessary."] No, I only wish to improve, not to takeaway, the jurisdiction; and I shall place the worthy alderman in my committee, where I expect considerable benefit from his assistance. I hope this will satisfy him, that if I wish for alteration in the jurisdiction of the city of London, as it regards the management of the police, it is only with a view to improvement. Allowing, for the sake of argument, that we have a tolerably good police during the day, when its services are not so necessary, I must be permitted to observe that at night, when we most stand in need of its protection, it is most defective. The defect proceeds from the want of a uniformity of system; each parish proceeding for itself during the night, in a manner that is very imperfect. It necessarily follows, that separate establishments must be imperfect; and a strong, and perhaps proper, disposition existing in each parish to administer the parochial affairs with great economy, the police of the night is left in a condition scandalously deficient; so that at last, in consequence of its imperfect state, crime
794
has full scope to increase, and private property becomes endangered. Honourable gentlemen have only to look around them to observe what a change has taken place, of late years, in the environs of the metropolis. Within that time our suburbs have grown up to an extraordinary extent, yet no adequate provision has been made for the safety of property, or the administration of criminal justice within their limits. The whole reliance of the inhabitants of those districts is placed —not on the police magistrates of London, who are too distant, and too much occupied to afford them assistance—but on such gentlemen as reside in the neighbeurhood, and are inclined to act in the commission of the peace. But in some places individuals have to travel seven or eight miles to procure the interference of a magistrate; so that many, balancing the loss of time, the expense, and the inconvenience attending prosecutions, make up their minds to put up with the injury they have received, and abandon all attempts at redress. If a banker loses a sum of 3000 l. or 4000 l by a coach or other robbery, he adopts a different course, and has, therefore, some chance of a remedy. The compounding of felony is another practice, of which I hope it is unnecessary to say I disapprove. I was applied to, a short time since, by a party from whom an enormous sum of money had been stolen, and was requested to offer his majesty's pardon to any of the accomplices who would give evidence of the robbery: but I at once declared, that I would never impose the prerogative of his majesty on any such occasion, unless I received a full assurance that the parties would ultimately prosecute. I have also uniformly opposed myself to any thing like compounding of felonies, of which we have had not a few examples within a recent period. I am aware that the subject is one extremely difficult to be reached by means of legal enactments, but if penalties can be so framed as to prevent the practice, I shall be extremely anxious for their adoption.
In a metropolis where proper facilities are not afforded for the administration of justice, on account of the absence or inefficiency of the magistracy, increase of crime is the necessary result. Without attempting to point out, at the present moment, the particular remedies which it may be desirable to apply, I will observe generally, that I should feel much dis-

795
posed to follow the example of Scotland in regard to prosecutions, and not throw upon the poorer classes, as is the custom in this country, the charge of vindicating themselves against the attacks of offenders, by a costly and tedious appeal to the laws of the country. When a man loses ten pounds, if he finds that it will cost him twenty pounds to prosecute the plunderer, the chances are that he declines to do so. Until, therefore, criminal justice shall be made cheap and easy to the sufferer, crime may be expected to increase. In Scotland, an individual is released from the necessity of prosecuting a criminal, by the appointment 'of a public officer for that purpose, who, apart from malice and private considerations, is bound to execute his duty with impartiality and firmness. But, when an individual is obliged to prosecute, as is the case in this country, at his own hazard, prudential considerations may induce him to refrain from bringing the offender to justice. I throw out these hints as matters which I think worthy of the consideration of the House as well as of the committee; although I do not believe that any effectual remedy can be devised by which the evil can be cured. The introduction of such a system would cause too great a change in our whole internal system. But when the committee have fully sifted the whole question, they will find that the time is come when these things ought to be gravely and seriously looked at. My immediate object in proposing this committee, is an inquiry into the causes of the increase of crime in the metropolis and its vicinity, and into the state of the police of the metropolis. There are so many points of inquiry into the general question, that I think I am doing best, by limiting it, in this way, on the present occasion. But I intreat hon. members, and particularly those who live in agricultural districts, to look seriously to the points upon which I have found it necessary to touch. Sir, I think—and it is useless to disguise the fact—that the time is come, when, from the increase in its population, the enlargement of its resources, and the multiplied development of its energies, we may fairly pronounce that the country has outgrown her police institutions, and that the cheapest and safest course will be found to be the introduction of a new mode of protection. Why, I ask, should we intrust a grocer, or any other tradesman, however respectable, with the direc-
796
tion and management of a police for 5,000 or 6,000 inhabitants? Why should such a person, unpaid and unrewarded, be taken from his usual avocations, and called upon to perform the laborious duties of a night constable? I say, Sir, that he has no reward; or, if he has a reward, he has it from improper sources; and this, I contend, is an argument in favour of the inquiry I propose. I am aware, Sir, that abuses exist in the watch and police systems. I am aware, that after having employed a man for twenty or thirty years, they know not what to do with him, or how to provide for him, and therefore they continue him in his employment, no matter how unfit for it he may have become.
I shall now, Sir, allude shortly to certain documents which I shall feel it my duty to lay before the committee. These documents shew the increase of crime in England and Wales in 1827, compared with 1826. Sir, it is of no use to deceive ourselves: it is of no use to shut our eyes against what is passing around us, and to praise ourselves upon our superior morality and Christian virtues. It is our duty to look around us, and to provide, so far as in us lies, remedies for the evils with which we are surrounded. By doing this, we shall best consult the interests of the country at large. In order to shew the House the state of crime in the metropolis, I shall take leave to read the amount of commitments within the last few years. In 1823, the total number of commitments, in England and Wales, was 12,263; in 1824, it was 13,698; making an increase of more than 1,400 criminals. In the next year, 1825, the number was 14, 437; making a still further increase, in the last year, of 739. In 1826 the number was 16,147; in 1827 it was 17,921; making an increase of 1,774 in the last year. From these statements, Sir, it is evident that there has been an increase of crime, in the last five years, to the amount of 5,000 persons. This, I say, is evident, from the documents I have just read. The last contains the number of commitments in 1826, as compared with those in 1827, shewing the decrease which has taken place in several counties. Perhaps the House may have the curiosity to know what are the counties in which a decrease of crime has taken place. In those comities (although there has been a general increase of 1774 in the sum total of the commitments in England and Wales

797
for the last year) there has been a decrease within the last year as compared with the former year, in the amount of commitments. These counties are Devonshire, Gloucestershire, the city of Bristol, the counties of Huntingdon, those of Middlesex and London, in which the decrease is as great as 76; and lastly, the counties of Rutland and Surrey. The total decrease is only 157, and out of that number the counties of Middlesex (including London) and Surrey, furnish the proportion of 112; so that in the other counties the decrease has been but very slight. On the other hand, there has been an increase in several counties of so large a nature, as far to exceed the decrease to which I have just referred. That increase, in 1827, as compared with the number of committals in the same counties, in the preceding year, may be thus stated:—In Cheshire the increase has been 82; in Lincolnshire 108; in Lancashire 85 (a number not very large, considering the population of that county, and the peculiar circumstances in which that population are placed); in Somersetshire 156 (an increase larger than that which has taken place in any other county of the same size); in Staffordshire, 121; in Yorkshire, 227; and in Worcestershire 81; by which, together with other counties, the increase amounts in the gross to 1,774. These, Sir, are some of the counties in which the increase has taken place; but in all of them that increase has been considerable. In Kent and Cardiganshire, by a curious and fortuitous circumstance, the relative numbers have continued precisely the same. From this enumeration I do not attempt to draw any of those inferences, for which it seems to offer so wide a field, and which theorists are so ready to adduce. It seems to me, that none can be safely drawn from them, either upon the general subject of distress, on that of the Game-laws, or on that of the facility of commitment, without, at the same time, taking into consideration a vast many points of inquiry, too numerous for me to touch upon at present.
These, Sir, are the points which appear to me to deserve the strictest examination, and which I have no doubt will obtain such examination from the committee which a noble lord had got appointed last session, to inquire into the Causes of the increase of crime in the country; and from the returns which I have this night read to the House, and
798
from others of a similar nature, which may afterwards be moved for. I think that the causes may hereafter be ascertained very satisfactorily. I ought to apologize to the House for having intruded so long upon its patience; but the deep interest which I naturally take in this subject has led me into a larger field than I ought, perhaps, to have traversed, seeing that the inquiry which I am about to propose is limited to the causes of the increase of crime in London and the vicinity, and to the state of the police for its detection and prevention. I feel, however, that the subject matter of the inquiry is connected with objects of such deep importance, not merely as they regard the security of individual property, but also as they regard the morals and habits of the entire population, that it will be my excuse for having trespassed so long on the time of the House. I now move, Sir, "That a select committee be appointed to inquire into the causes of the increase of the number of commitments and convictions in London and Middlesex for the year 1827; and into the state of the police of the metropolis and the districts adjoining thereto; and to report their observations thereupon to the House."
Mr. Humecontended, that the right hon. gentleman, as well as the committee which the noble lord had obtained last year, to inquire into the increase of crime in the country, had shut their eyes to the real causes of it, and had blinked the only question into which it was important for the people that they should institute an inquiry. He was satisfied that the decreased wages paid to labourers, which, in some instances, was reduced two-thirds, and in others one-half, compared to what they were, was one great cause of the increase of crime; but the great evil of all was, excessive taxation. He had heard it stated by the right hon. Secretary, that the increase of our manufactures was one of the causes of increase of crime. He was of a different opinion.—He believed the increase arose from the general want of employment, occasioned by that over taxation which was grinding all classes of the community. We were now paying upwards of sixty millions for taxes annually; and there was but little hope of the evils being removed till that amount was greatly reduced. Another cause of these evils was the emigration of the starving Irish to this country; the conse-

799
quence of this was, that our peasantry, by having their wages reduced by the competition thus introduced, were driven to the commission of crimes. He, therefore, said that ministers had blinked the real cause of these evils; for, unless taxation was reduced, it would be useless to expect that property could be protected from the attacks of men who were starving. He intreated the right hon. Secretary to look boldly at the situation of this country and Ireland. He would say, pacify Ireland, and there would then be no necessity for having a large garrison in that country. He would also say, keep from this country the immense flocks of labourers who were daily coming hither to the injury of her native inhabitants by the introduction of Poor-laws, if no better means could be demised. He did not mean to object to a committee; but he was apprehensive that no good would be derived from it. The remedy was with the ministers, and consisted in a reduction of the taxes.
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, that, as his noble friend, the marquis of Lansdowne, had intended to have brought under the consideration of parliament the very question which had been so ably submitted to it that evening by the right hon. gentleman, who had succeeded him as Secretary of State for the Home Department, he felt it to be a duty which he owed to his noble friend, not to remain entirely silent. He would commence by stating, that in almost every word which the right hon. gentleman had said he entirely agreed; but he must, at the same time, take the liberty of urging the right hon. gentleman, with respect to one branch of it, which was of paramount importance, not to approach it either with timidity or apathy. Every man, who had paid the slightest attention to the practical operation of our criminal laws, would readily acknowledge, that one of the great impediments to any efficient improvement of them, was to be traced to the multiplicity and diversity of the peculiar jurisdictions which were now employed in the detecting of crime. When he looked either at the state of the parochial watch, or at the peculiar regulations of the police in the city of London, he felt convinced, that the House, on coming to deal with a question so important to the security and property, and to the moral feelings of the population, would not allow any partial or parochial jurisdiction to stand in the way of their doing what was right to their constituents, and of their advancing the essen-
800
tial interests of public justice. He was well aware, that when the condition of the police was brought under the notice of parliament, first by sir A. Macdonald, who was then Solicitor-general, and afterwards by a right hon. gentleman (Mr. R. Ryder) who once filled the office of Home Secretary, and who still retained his seat in that House, the state of the nightly watch was a circumstance, which they both declared it to be their intention to alter and improve. There was then a reluctance on the part of the House to interfere in the regulation of establishments which had been so long part and parcel of the regular institutions in the land; but he was happy to say, that at present there was a great alteration of opinion upon that point, and that those who formerly looked with jealousy on any interference with their exclusive rights, would not stand in the way of improvement, if it could be proved to their satisfaction that some part of their rights ought to be sacrificed for the advantage of the public. If, however, they should be obstinately attached to their old system, and should declare that they would on no account willingly lend themselves to the accomplishment of schemes which were considered schemes of improvement, he trusted that in the age in which they lived, and in which opinion exercised so extensive and beneficial a sway, the Commons of England would not allow any grand objects to be frustrated by the paltry jealousy, either of parochial or of corporate bodies. He would therefore declare at once, that it was his opinion that it would be impossible to make any substantial improvement in the condition of the police, so long as the parochial watch was allowed to continue under its present system of management. That system was objectionable, as it was under the control of a set of officers who were annually appointed and annually changed. To make the watch really useful and efficient, it should be permanent in itself, and should be under the control of permanent, and therefore responsible authorities. It should likewise be free from the interference of all persons who had anything to do with the administration of the Poor-laws; for what useful result could be expected from it, when those who had the appointment of it, instead of seeking to prevent crime, sought to diminish the Poor-rates by enrolling individuals on the watch, in order to prevent them from coming upon the parish?—He was of opinion that hitherto, in considering

801
the state of the metropolitan police, the House had limited its inquiries much too narrowly. They had limited them to the state of the police in London and Westminster only; and, therefore, just in proportion as the police was improved in those places in consequence of the inquiries instituted by the House, did crime increase in the neighbouring villages and the surrounding counties. They drove the perpetrators of crime from the parishes in the metropolis: but what was the result? Why, that they sought and found refuge in the parishes in its outskirts, and that immediate complaints were made in those parishes of the increase of crime. He was of opinion that those who supposed that the country was to be at, the entire expense of supporting a police for the parishes in the counties adjoining the metropolis, laboured under a mistake of which they could not be cured too rapidly. Every body agreed that the country ought to pay for the expense of the police of the metropolis; but he thought that the counties adjoining to the metropolis had not the same claim on the purse of the country, and ought, therefore, to eon-tribute towards the defraying of the expense of it themselves. There was another circumstance connected with the increase of crime, which had attracted the attention of former committees, and ought to attract the attention of all future ones: he alluded to the system of licensing public-houses. As long as things remained as they now were in London, where, from causes which had been adverted to, the state of the magistracy was not so satisfactory as it was elsewhere,—as long as they had a system in existence which placed out of their control certain houses, were they ever so bad, and gave them no power to license other houses were they ever so good—so long would it be impossible to consider that they had in such a district any security against the increase of crime. It was a notorious fact, that certain houses were nothing better than dens for thieves, in which crimes were planned and robberies devised with the most unblushing effrontery; and yet it was a fact equally notorious, that if such houses were the property of certain individuals, they were quite secure from all control. Let the House only consider how the prevalence of such an idea was calculated to impair the respect which ought to belong to the magistracy. If the public saw that no confidence could be reposed in the magistracy on account
802
of the improper manner in which they discharged one part of their duty, would it be inclined to extend its confidence to them for the mode in which they discharged the other?—There was another point connected with this subject, into which he thought the committee should also be directed to inquire: he meant the extent of juvenile delinquency. Without looking attentively into that point, he thought it would be quite impossible for the House to check the progress of crime. He was ready to admit that much had already been done by the right hon. Secretary to improve the system of prison laws; but there was, unfortunately, such a large class of juvenile offenders, that the system of confining them together, merely because they were young, was subversive of every principle of prison discipline, which tended to retard the increase of crime. In London the number of juvenile delinquents was at present so enormous, that it would be quite impossible to diminish it, unless a prison was erected in which they could be classed, not according to their age, but the degree of their crime. Besides these, there was another point, which, sooner or later, must come under the consideration of parliament: he meant the secondary mode of punishment, by transportation. If any gentleman could see the letters which were written by the convicts in New South Wales and Van Diemen's land, to their friends at home, and peruse the description which they gave of their condition in those colonies, they would see that nothing could be clearer than that transportation afforded encouragement to crime. It was not one, but a hundred letters, which he had seen, in which the convicts had used such language as this to their friends:—"We are in a situation here far more comfortable than we ever were at home. We are better off in this country than you, who are convicted of no offence, can ever hope to be in England; and the best wish we can make you is, that you may be enabled to join us here without delay." Now, if such were the representations of the convicts, was it possible that transportation could operate as a check upon crime?—During the time that his noble friend the marquis of Lansdowne had been in office, he had introduced an alteration in the police regulations of the metropolis, to which he would call the notice of the House. It might not perhaps, be generally known, that there was a publication called the

803
"Hue and Cry:" it gave an account of the offences committed within certain districts of the metropolis, and had a certain but limited sale. The mode in which it was published, seemed not to answer the purposes for which it was designed, and his noble friend had made an alteration in it, which, though it gave it a more frequent issue, was also calculated to give it a more extensive circulation. He would suggest to the right hon. Secretary the propriety of carrying that publication much further that it had yet been carried. It would have been carried further during the last autumn, had not the interposition of Parliament been necessary to sanction the expense to which it must of course put the country. The scheme proposed was this: to transmit a paper containing a description of the thief, of the property stolen, and of all the indicia of the crime, to every keeper of a public-house, to every licensed dealer in horses, and to every pawnbroker in the country; so that immediately after a crime was committed, there might be a description of the criminal placarded, as it were, in every town in the empire. The benefit of such a plan would consist in its giving a ubiquity to the police, far greater than any which it had ever before possessed. It was as yet imperfect in its details; but he implored the right honourable Secretary to give it his attention, if it had not already received it. He admitted that it was lamentable to consider the increase of crime which had taken place during the last year; but, lamentable as it was, he thought that it was not such as to fill us with despondency and despair. In the first place, it appeared from the returns, that whilst the number of offences had increased, their enormity had diminished. He looked upon that circumstance as a decisive proof of the improvement of the state of society. But, supposing that the increase of crime was more decisively marked than it was at present, it ought not to be forgotten, that the increase of crime must always depend on the proportion of temptation to commit it. Now, if the House considered the immense increase of property which had taken place within the last few years, and the careless manner in which property was now-a-days exposed in the public streets for sale, it would get directly at one cause of the increase of crime. Besides, we ought to recollect, that in our calculations, we were dealing with crime as it was exhibited to us by criminal proceedings; and nothing
804
could be more clear, than that every step which we took to facilitate prosecutions was a step towards the increase of their numbers, and consequently towards the increase of crime, as it appeared upon paper. It followed, from the right hon. gentleman's own acts that many crimes were now prosecuted which were not prosecuted formerly; and if the right hon. gentleman should be inclined to try the experiment which he had mentioned to the House, and which worked so well in practice in Scotland—he meant the adoption of the Scotch system of a public prosecutor,—he would venture to predict, that without the increase of a single offender, they would have a great and surprising increase in the return of crime.
Mr. Wilmot Hortonsaid, that the hon. member for Montrose was always trying to induce the House to believe, that the cause of all the distresses of the country was its taxation, and that its only hope of relief from those distresses was in the remission of that taxation. A reduction in the expenditure would not affect the low rate of wages, which was caused by the existence of a redundant population. The lower classes were distressed because their capital and labour did not meet with a sufficient demand. A reduction in the taxes would not meet that evil. As long as persons were out of employment, a remission of taxation would not raise the general condition of the mass of the labouring poor. Other remedies must be resorted to for the removal of that evil. This was a subject of vital importance, and he should reserve himself for other opportunities during the session to enter more at large into the various details connected with it. There was another subject upon which he wished to say a few words. He had often heard it asserted, that the immediate effects of the passing of that measure, in which Ireland was so deeply interested, would be the introduction of capital, and the establishment of manufactories, in that kingdom. Yielding to no man in the deliberate conviction, that the passing of that measure would put an end to a class of evils which might be referred to certain moral causes existing in Ireland, he would at the same time deny, that the abolishing of those causes would operate as a cure for the redundant population. That redundancy was principally, if not totally, caused by the absence of the demand for labour. When gentlemen talked of the granting

805
Catholic emancipation as the means of throwing manufactures into Ireland, he should be glad to know how it came to pass that the Irish population were not brought over to this country and employed in manufactures? If the manufacturer would not go to Ireland, what was to prevent the Irish from coming here? Now, what was the fact? The Irish did come over here, and came over in shoals, and so reduced the price of labour, that, in the end, the population of this country will be brought to a similar state of distress and misery as the population of Ireland. While gentlemen looked to moral effects, and endeavoured to remove the moral causes which operated to produce those effects in Ireland, they should also direct their attention to the practically operating causes of the present condition of the labouring classes there. The sub-letting act, if carried fairly into effect, was calculated to, produce the most beneficial consequences in Ireland. The Poor-laws, if that portion which applied to the employment of able-bodied men were repealed, would likewise be productive of the greatest benefit. The effects, however, which they witnessed, would continue as long as a redundant population existed. The only hope for the House was, fairly to look at the state of the population, and to discuss the causes to which that condition was attributable.
Sir E. Knatchbullsaid, he felt himself called upon to address a few observations to the House, particularly after what had fallen from his right hon. friend, in allusion to the county of Kent. His right hon. friend had said, that he considered the situation of this country was nearly approaching that state in which the population had outgrown the institutions of the country. He would take the observation in the qualified sense in which his right hon. friend intended to use it, applying it only to the police institutions. In that observation he entirely accorded; and he was gratified to learn from his right hon. friend, that he had no reason to extend it further. He had heard with satisfaction, that this inquiry was not to apply exclusively to the metropolis, but was to be extended to the towns in the neighbourhood of that great city. He rejoiced at this circumstance; for whatever might be the difficulties which the police of the metropolis had to struggle with—however arduous might be the duties of the magis-
806
trates who presided in the offices—he was afraid that the obstacles to the administration of justice in the metropolis were not greater than those which existed in the towns in its vicinity. He would mention, in particular, the town of Greenwich. In no part of the kingdom was the inquiry more requisite. The same remark would apply to Chatham and Sheerness, in spite of the meritorious exertions of the gentlemen in the commission of the peace; and he would take that opportunity of saying, that the magistrates of Kent had generally discharged their important duties in the most satisfactory manner. He believed no set of men deserved better of their country. He was anxious to make this observation, in consequence of some statements made, on a late occasion, by a learned gentleman (Mr. Brougham), and which it would have been well to have answered at the time, if the opportunity had allowed of it. He would, however, not say one word more on that point, as the question would come on again to-morrow. The hon. gentleman who had spoken last but one, had stated, that culprits who had been transported, had written to their friends in such a style as induced the opinion, that that mode of punishment was not severe. He was of an entirely different opinion. It had happened to him to have read communications on the same subject; but of all those communications he had never seen one which was not accompanied by expressions of regret at the loss of the society of their friends, and their removal from their native country. But if transportation was not a sufficient punishment, what would the hon. gentleman substitute? Surely he was not friendly to the system of confining men on board of the hulks. It had been tried, and had been found to fail. With respect to the Game-laws, no one could be more hostile to the present system than himself. No subject was more deserving of the attention of the House. As to his right hon. friend's act relative to prosecutions, it had caused a considerable increase in the expenditure of the counties. At the same time it had occasioned a great increase in the number of commitments. He thought his right hon. friend would do well to re-consider that part of the act, which gave such facility to prosecutors in obtaining their expenses. He entirely concurred with his right hon. friend, that there was no ground for despondency while that House acted

807
firmly and honestly. He hoped also that a fair construction would be put upon the conduct of the magistracy. It was one of the greatest securities in this country that it had an unpaid magistracy, far removed above all suspicion of injustice, and disposed to carry justice home to the doors of every individual in the country.
Dr. Lushingtonsaid, that the act of parliament passed for the regulation of prison discipline had been completely evaded by the magistrates of Middlesex. Last session he had moved for the report of the visiting magistrates in 1825, and it was frightful to see how the prisons had gone on increasing in iniquity, while no remedy had been applied to the evil. That Report stated, that riots and assaults were of daily occurrence in Cold Bath Fields prison; that incorrigible offenders were often confined with those who were comparatively guiltless, and frequently discharged without prosecution. In consequence of receiving this information, he had gone, in October 1826, to that prison to ascertain whether it could be true. He then saw eighty or ninety prisoners confined in one room, and the sleeping place allotted for each was about sixteen inches, in breadth. The greater portion of them, went to sleep in a perfectly naked condition. When he inquired why such a number of human beings were thus pent up in one room, the superintendent stated, that there was no other place for them. He understood from him, that when he went to open the door of this room in the morning, he was nearly overpowered by the smell, and was obliged to leave the door open for several minutes before he could enter; such was the dreadful stench which issued from the apartment. The condition of this prison still remained unaltered. No remedy had been applied but one, which, to the honour of the magistrates of Middlesex, was unique in its way. They dismissed the whole body of the visiting committee. Undoubtedly that was rather an extraordinary mode of proceeding, but in justice he must say, that the magistrates had since repented of their rashness, and taken the offenders again into favour. In pursuance of the Consolidated act, relative to prisons, a large book was laid late every year on the table of the House. He had looked into that book, in order to compare its statements with the report of the visiting magistrates; but he had found only four or rive lines, simply stating that the
808
provisions of the act had been complied I with in the prison. Here, then, according to the report, all was well. Where was the use of acts of parliament for the regulation of prisons and prison-discipline, if, where the grossest violations of their enactments were committed, and those evils existed which they were intended to meet, it was thus reported in four or five lines, that the provisions of the act had been complied with? He had also visited the prison of Newgate. The space afforded to the prisoners there was very small, and the classification highly objectionable. In the same little cell would be seen confined one individual committed upon a charge affecting his life, and another whose guilt, if any, was perhaps of a very venial character. The House had heard of the increase of crime, but ought it to excite their surprise when they were told of the scenes of contamination which passed in Newgate? They had only to visit that prison, and there behold, as he had done, three individuals confined in the same cell, one of whom was under sentence of death, whose time was fixed, and who was preparing for his dreadful fate, while the other two prisoners, who were certain of a commutation of their sentence to that of transportation, were cheerful and in high spirits. Was this right? The corporate rights of the city of London ought to be upheld: but they should not be allowed to exist for a moment if they tended to continue such a system as this. There was another point which he wished to suggest for the consideration of the right hon. gentleman. Why should the Old Bailey sessions be confined to the city of London and county of Middlesex? Why should not the jurisdiction of that court be extended to the other side of Blackfriars-bridge, and include persons guilty of offences in Surry and Kent? It might be said, that it was better for the city of London that the expenses attendant upon the trial of such offenders should be thrown upon the counties respectively. God forbid that such an objection should for a moment stand in the way of the due administration of justice! As the law now stood, an offender upon the other side of Blackfriars-bridge must, when apprehended, be maintained in prison at the expense of the county until the assizes. The winter assizes had certainly afforded great relief: but if the Old Baily sessions were more equalized, and took in a larger jurisdiction, many existing evils would be remedied,

809
much expense would be saved, and the purposes of justice would be better accomplished.
Mr. D. Barclaysaid, that a great deal of valuable information was contained in the Report of the Committee of 1817. He had no hope of any material improvement in the police of the metropolis, unless an end was put to the system of parish police. The right hon. gentleman had alluded to the increase of the population, and he agreed that, whoever compared the police establishment with the population, must be convinced that the time had arrived when the state of the police required consideration. An hon. baronet had alluded to the increased expense of prosecutions; and he concurred with that hon. baronet, that it arose in some measure from the increased facility lately given to prosecutions. Townsend, the Bow-street officer, in his evidence before the committee of 1817, had stated, that he remembered when ten and twenty persons at a time "graced the gibbet," while of late years, he said, we had only a paltry example of one or two brought forward; and from this decrease of capital punishment, Townsend inferred the increase of crime. The hon. member was of opinion, that if some protection was given to the parties concerned in the robberies of banks and receiving stolen goods, from the consequence of their own evidence, considerable benefit would result from it. By referring to the report of the committee of 1817, much time might be saved, in the examination of evidence before the new committee.
Mr. Alderman Woodsaid, that the establishment of the day-police of the right hon. gentleman was known to have produced great benefit to the public. But the day-police was not new in the city of London. It had existed there for a great number of years. Some allusions had been made to the difficulty resulting from the concurrent jurisdiction exercised by the magistrates of the city with the magistrates of the Borough. But it was impossible that a more general disposition could exist on the part both of the city and county magistrates, to give every facility to the administration of justice. As to the rights and privileges of the city, he could assure the right hon. gentleman, that there would be no difficulty. He would advise him to imitate the police of London. He had heard that night of a parish police. There was no such thing in the city of London. It was
810
all under one jurisdiction—that of the corporation. A law had been passed for the regulation of the city police. The general rule was, that no watchman was taken who was beyond forty years of age; and the night-watch throughout the city was liable to the superintendence of the patrol appointed by the corporation. No one ward could act as it pleased. The watchmen belonging to it were under the management of the superintendents, called patrols, paid out of the corporation funds. The marshalmen also exercised an active vigilance and were bound to go round nightly to see that every watchman in London was doing his duty; and that the night constables were also doing theirs. The frequent resolutions of the corporation shewed that they had adopted every necessary measure for the safety of the city. But if people would neglect all common precautions, and lock-up the doors of their counting-houses, with great property in them, leaving not a soul with-inside, what police could defend them? The whole was frequently left under a padlock, which any experienced thief could pick; and in this way property to the amount of 20,000 l. or 40,000 l. was exposed to danger, because the office-keeper would not render himself liable to some paltry tax, or parish office, by keeping a servant to protect it.—It was not the first time he had heard the learned doctor make the same observations as to the state of Newgate. But he had never been able to substantiate one of them. He admitted that that prison was much crowded; and and he, on the part of the city of London, would feel much obliged if the learned doctor would take these prisoners off their hands. It would be a saving of 20,000 l. out of the corporation funds. The whole of these prisoners were supported at the expense of the corporation. The charges of the witnesses at the sessions also came out of the pockets of the corporation. But the learned civilian asked, how could so many prisoners be kept in one cell, under sentence of death? The city had nothing to do with that; the Secretary for the Home Department, could better explain how it happened. By next Saturday twenty more prisoners under sentence of death would be added to the forty already in the condemned cells. But what had the city to do with this delay? It arose from the unfortunate state of health of an illustrious person. The city could provide

811
no remedy; they had burthens enough already. They had to maintain State prisoners, and prisoners for misdemeanors, according to acts of parliament; and they were obliged, consequently, often to keep a large space for one or two prisoners. Was the city to enlarge Newgate at its own expense? Let not the county magistrates commit so many prisoners to that prison when they knew it was in a crowded state, and much of the evil might be avoided. The judges did all in their power to relieve it, by never sentencing to it any prisoner to a term of confinement, except in some very peculiar cases. None of the city prisoners were sent to the county prisons; on the contrary, they were all confined in the House of Correction within the city. With respect to the causes of the present defects, he would call the attention of the House to the trials which took place at Newgate. The most trifling charges were sent there to be disposed of; and it was a common thing for boys of from ten to twelve years of age to be convicted of theft. Now was it not dreadful that a child of such tender years should be put on his trial. The payment of expenses for prosecution likewise led to more evils than the House imagined: they would be surprised to hear, that men of title and of rank asked for their expenses —not, indeed, in their own persons; but supposing their coachmen appeared against a prisoner for stealing a coat which belonged to the master, the expenses were immediately asked for. This was not as it ought to be; and with respect to the lower classes, it was a great motive with them to prosecute. Another objection to the present system was the transporting criminals for the short period of seven years, in pursuance of which sentence they were sent, on their good behaviour, to the hulks, and were again turned loose on the town, after having plotted, during their retirement, scenes of robberies for succeeding years. He could assure the right hon. gentleman that he was anxious to give every aid in his power to the proposed inquiry.
Colonel Woodsaid, that neither the magistrates of Middlesex nor the police magistrates committed, in the first instance, to Newgate, but to the New Prison, from which, a few days before trial, the prisoners were transferred to Newgate. The learned doctor had complained of the crowded state of the
812
New Prison. He had visited it a few days ago, and was happy to say, that although it had sometimes been in that state, yet he did not find it so then. He had no hesitation, however, in saying, that it was wholly unfit for a prison in its present state, and that it never could be made fit. However great the expense might be, every criminal ought to have a separate cell. At that season of the year, the prisoners were locked up at dusk. Let the House conceive what a situation they must be in, being all shut up together. He thought there should be two prisons; one for commitments, and the other for correction; and as Westminster was going to build a prison, he said, "if Westminster will not come to us, let us go to Westminster;" but it was answered—no: it was necessary that they should have a prison of their own. He hoped that this jealousy between Middlesex and Westminster would be done away with.
Mr. Alderman Woodsaid, in explanation, that almost all the committals of the police magistrates were made to Newgate.
Mr. Alderman Waithmansaid, he should confine himself to the facts that had come under his own knowledge. While he filled the office of sheriff, it had been his melancholy duty to witness the execution of thirty-six persons. He also visited Newgate three or four days a week, and never found it in the state described by the learned doctor. The crowded state of Newgate was the city's misfortune, and not its fault, and was attributable to the thousands of prisoners that annually passed through it. Now, as to the increase of crime. If the committee about to be appointed was merely to give facility to prosecutions, then all that it would do would be to multiply prosecutions without removing crime. It was his belief that the greater part of the depredations in the city were committed by juvenile depredators; and he thought that the right hon. gentleman would agree with him, that there were much fewer prisoners sent from London than from Middlesex. If any thing better than the present system could be contrived, he was sure the magistrates of London would concur in it. They had, within the last few weeks, inquired diligently into the system of police in the city, and it was their intention to regulate it in the manner which would give the most effectual security to the inhabitants.

813
As to the increase of crime generally, without speaking of taxation, he should say that it was in a great measure, caused by want of employment. He thought the committee would find this to be the opinion of the magistrates. But it was taxation that had effected this want of employment. Excess of taxation had depreciated property and trade, and had thus effected a great dearth of employment. He believed that parents found it extremely difficult to find employment for their children, more especially for their boys; and it was only necessary to look into the calendar and observe the number of boys who had been committed, and the small articles which they had stolen—chiefly articles necessary to subsistence—in order to see the consequence of this state of things. Let the committee about to be appointed recollect, that they would do no good by multiplying the number, of committals. Their main object ought to be the prevention of crime, and not the punishment of it. He fully agreed in the propriety of the inquiry. He believed the committee would obtain much valuable information; but he thought that the police of the city of London would be found as perfect and complete as in any part of the kingdom.
Mr. Dickensonwas sorry to hear that the county of Somersetshire was more prolific in crime than any other county; but though the convictions were more numerous, it was a curious fact that the prosecutions under the Game-laws were less.
Mr. Moncksaid, that he agreed with the hon. member for Aberdeen, that the increase of crime was in a great measure attributable to the increase of taxation. It would be seen, by referring to p. Statistical Account of France, lately published, that the wages of an agricultural labourer per day were 14 d., and those of a mechanic or artisan 20 d.; and yet that the condition of the people was daily improving. In the South of France, those miserable hovels formerly seen were disappearing, and comfortable cottages, with glazed windows, were rising in every direction. How, then, was it that the quantum of wages in France was sufficient to provide the labourers with comfort, while the same quantum here brought our labourers into misery and indigence? The great causes must be the height of taxation, and the enormous price of provisions. In France, bread was but a
814
penny a pound, and butchers' meat under four-pence. On what ground but that of taxation was it that ministers were obliged to have recourse to a Corn-bill? Without that act it would be impossible for England to compete with the continent. Indeed, it was clear, if the plough was to be kept in motion, that we must have prices above those of the continent. With regard to Ireland, he thought that, while that country remained in its present agitated state, it mattered little whether the manufactories were transferred thither, or the Irish labourer came over here to seek employment in them. If she were once tranquillized, capital would be employed on objects of local utility; in the improvement of agriculture, in the construction of canals, and in the draining and reclaiming of bogs; but as long as she was kept in her present state of agitation, no man of sense would trust his property in a country so distracted.
Mr. Alderman Thompsonsaid, that the police of London was as efficient as in any other part of the country. As to the increase of crime, he believed one of the causes of it to be the low price of ardent spirits. Another cause was the system of compromising felonies. There was now going on in the city a regularly organized plan of stealing from counting-houses books and securities for money. These were the cases in which felonies were generally compromised. He was not at all surprised that persons whose credit was at stake, should be induced to enter into compromises of this nature. He hoped that the committee would inquire closely into the state of the law on this subject, and especially into the act called "Jonathan Wild's act." To convict under that act was extremely difficult. As to the crowded state of Newgate, he lamented it as much as any one; but he was quite sure that the person to whom the unhappy inmates of that prison were committed, treated them with the greatest humanity. If there was any way in which the crowded state of Newgate could be remedied, it would be a great benefit. He should recommend, that prisoners who had bean tried, and sentenced to transportation, should be sent off immediately.
Sir F. Burdettsaid, that there was already on the table of the House the report of a committee that had inquired very fully into the crowded state of the prisons, the cause of the increase of crime, and

815
the abuses of the licensing system. If that report were taken, and some practical measure devised, something might be hoped for; but he did not see that much good could be derived from another committee sitting, and contenting themselves with laying another report on the table.
Mr. Secretary Peelreplied, and observed, that the hon. baronet was mistaken when he supposed that nothing had taken place subsequent to the report of the committee, of which he had just spoken. He believed that every one of the regulations proposed had been carried into effect. An act had been passed for the improvement of the prison-discipline, and all the provisions of that bill had been acted upon; also an alteration had taken place with respect to the licensing system. An hon. member had complained, that the proposed alterations were only to extend to London and Middlesex; but the hon. gentleman had not understood him aright. His motion was proposed to extend to the metropolis and the districts adjoining thereto; which would of course include a portion of Surrey, Essex, and Kent. When, however, he had referred to the state of crime, as the only documents he had were furnished from the Old Bailey, he had of course been obliged to confine himself to London and Middlesex. He was sorry that the fourth hon. member for London was not present, as no doubt he, like the three worthy aldermen, would have stood up to vindicate the city of London; but he could assure those hon. gentlemen, that he never had the least intention to cast the slightest reflections on the police of the city. All that he had said was, that instead of the police of London being on a concurrent principle, it appeared to act on an exclusive one. With respect to the crowded state of Newgate, that would have been remedied long since, had it not been for a doubt that was entertained, that, by a prescriptive right, arising from long custom, the recorder's report ought to be taken within the limits of London. Steps, however, were taken to relieve the pressure without delay. He had only to observe, that in constituting this committee, he had been anxious to select those magistrates who had been most active in their respective Counties. Several very active members were already too much occupied upon the finance committee to give this the benefit of their labours.
The motion was then agreed to, and a committee appointed.

TEST AND CORPORATION ACTS.
Lord J. Russell Lord J. Russell moved the order of the day for the House resolving itself into a committee of the whole House to consider further of the Test and Corporation acts. The noble lord observed, that there was another act which he wished to be referred to the committee, namely, the act of the 16th Geo. 2nd for indemnifying from penalties individuals who had not qualified, according to law, for certain offices. This proposition having been agreed to, the House went into the committee, Mr. Spring Rice in the chair.
Lord John Russell, in addressing the committee, observed, that he felt very great satisfaction at the tone and temper by which the former discussion had been marked. He was happy to say, that in no part of it had angry feeling been manifested: on the one side nothing had been introduced that could give offence to the most zealous friends of the church, nor on the other, had any argument been adduced that could wound the feelings of the Dissenters. In such a collision of opinion, on a subject of this nature, some strong expression of feeling might have been expected, but no such feeling had been expressed. Nothing was said, on the one hand, to give pain to the feelings of those who called for the repeal of the Test and Corporation acts; and on the other hand, not one word had been advanced, which could create soreness or irritation in the minds of the right hon. gentlemen who had opposed the measure. For his own part, looking to the question, as a really important question—as a question connected with national feeling; as a question which touched, in a very material degree, on the rights of the subject—he should not allude to any of those minor divisions which might tend rather to narrow its scope, and to introduce a view of it which it appeared to him to be most desirable to avoid. Indeed, the only part of the question which he thought it necessary to allude to, was the proposition of his hon. friend, the member for Devon (sir T. D. Acland), for a temporary suspension of those acts. This proposition was one of much importance—one that deserved deep consideration. In his opinion, to treat the subject in that way would be to tamper and palter with a

817
great question—to treat it in a manner unworthy of its magnitude—to deal with it in a way that would not be satisfactory either to the Dissenters or to the members of the Church of England. Because, while it would give to the Dissenters the power of connecting themselves with corporations and other establishments, it would still leave them in that state of precarious tenure which formed the great objection to the existing system while, on the other hand, it would interfere in such a way with the securities provided by the Test and Corporation acts, as to create dissatisfaction in the Church of England; for those who were favourable to the securities now in force would fear that, if they were once suspended, they would never again be carried into effect. Thus each party would remain dissatisfied. He therefore thought the committee would be of opinion with him, that if, during the course of eighty-five years, the operation of these acts was, in a great degree, suspended, nothing remained now but to continue the present system or to do it away altogether. The Indemnity act itself, being, as it were, but a half-measure—if, in place of it, they introduced a new half-measure, what would be its effect, but to keep the minds of men in suspense on a point of much importance to the liberties of Englishmen? If such a measure was calculated to keep the Dissenters in a state of half security and half suspense, it would be a great pity that a principle of that kind should be acted upon. He hoped, therefore, that those gentlemen of the committee who were disposed to make any alteration in these acts, would go with him the whole length of removing them entirely. The only proposition which he could make was, to supersede them. If the House or the committee differed with him, he had no other proposition to make; and he must say, in candour, that he could not bring himself to agree to a proposition of any other kind.—Much had been said, the other night, on the effect which the repeal of these acts was likely to have on another very important question, which had been often discussed in parliament—he meant the disabilities under which the Roman Catholics laboured. He was quite ready to confess, that he entertained a feeling that the grievances under which the Roman Catholics laboured were so much greater and so much more galling than any of which the Dissenters could com-
818
plain; that, although if the question of the repeal of the Test and Corporation acts had been brought forward at any time, or under any circumstances, he should have felt it his duty to vote in favour of it, yet he was equally bound to confess, that he never could or would have brought it forward, if he thought that by doing so he was injuring the cause of the Roman Catholics. He did not know what effect this declaration might produce upon the minds of those who were disposed to support the present question; but he thought it was due to himself to declare it; and he had never kept his opinions upon the subject a secret from the Dissenters. He had informed them last year, when he was requested to undertake the management of the application for a repeal of the Test and Corporation acts, that he was then ready to bring the question forward; but that he could not pledge himself specifically, unless with the reservation, that if any thing arose which was likely to prove injurious to the Catholic question from the agitation of the subject, he was not to be called upon to undertake the part of their advocate. He did not, however, think that the agitation of the present question was liable to the objection which had been made to it by some of the hon. gentlemen opposite. In the first place, and as a matter of general principle, their views were precisely the same. The petitions of the Roman Catholics for the settlement of their claims, and the petitions of the Protestant Dissenters praying that they might be relieved from civil disabilities, all commenced in nearly the same terms, and bottomed in the same principle; namely, that men ought to be indulged in the free exercise of their religious belief, unmolested by any restraint with respect to their civil privileges. He would, therefore, contend, that if in this case, he pledged the House to a feeling of this kind—if he thus far attached the House to a principle of general liberty, with regard to religious belief—undoubtedly he considered it a very great step in favour of the Roman Catholics. If parliament should say, "Nothing can be alleged against the Dissenters, and therefore those laws shall be abrogated;" and if they afterwards decided against the Roman Catholics, who held no doctrines, who harboured no feelings, against the constitution, whose only crime was, that they adhered to a particular religious be-

819
lief—if they decided against the admission of the Roman Catholics to civil privileges—he could not very well conceive on what fair ground such a decision could rest. He admitted, that, between the two cases, there were points of difference; but still, he could not but think, that, in the end, the argument came to that which he had stated. One point struck him very forcibly, and it was this—that if the present motion were conceded, many would look to the other great question with a better temper than they were at present disposed to do.—Again, it had been said, that by bringing forward this question, he was producing a great and serious evil—that he was pursuing a course which would create dissention between the Protestant Dissenters and the Church of England, which would break down that kind feeling that had, for several years, prevailed between them. Now, his answer to this was, that his object was not to prevent but to perpetuate the feeling of kindness which had so long animated those two bodies. Indeed, when individuals imagined that there was anything in the present motion which was likely to operate against a general feeling of harmony, he laboured under an error. Good evidence could be at once produced to the contrary. Let gentlemen look to the petition of the Roman Catholics of Ireland. They called on the House to repeal the laws which were now under consideration. They were merely lookers-on. In this particular question they had no direct interest. It was known that the Test acts had been done away in Ireland. And what was the result? Why, since that time, it was admitted on all hands, that a growing good feeling had been manifested between the Dissenters and Protestants of Ireland. If such had been the effect of the repeal of the Test acts there, he could not see why the same effect should not be produced here. He thought, after the great majority which sanctioned this proposition the other night, there was no wiser course for the Church of England to pursue, than that of agreeing immediately, and with a good grace, to the repeal which had been so decidedly called for. He trusted that this would be done—that no cavil would be made—that the friends of the Church of England would impute no sinister design to the Dissenters, but that they would receive them as good subjects—as men who loved the constitu-
820
tion—as a body whose innocence of all malice to the church must be admitted. Such should be their feelings, until by some unexpected conduct on the part of the Dissenters themselves, it might be deemed necessary—a thing which he could not conceive—either to continue the present statutes, or to re-enact others of a similar kind. The noble lord concluded by moving,
"That so much of an Act of the 13th of Charles 2nd, entitled, 'An Act for the well-governing and regulating of Corporations,' and so much of an Act of the 25th Charles 2nd, entituled, 'An Act for preventing dangers which may happen from Popish Recusants', and of another act of the 16th Geo. 2nd, for amending the last mentioned act, as require the person or persons in the said acts described to take or receive the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper according to the rites or usage of the Church of England, for the purposes therein expressed, or impose any penalty, forfeiture, incapacity, or disability, by reason of any neglect or omission so to do."
Sir T. D. Aclandsaid, that having been alluded to so particularly by the noble lord who had just sat down, he felt it necessary, in order to guard against misapprehension, to explain what he had stated on a former evening. After what had already passed, it was impossible not to see that, in the opinion of the House of Commons, some decisive steps ought to be taken in the alteration, amendment, or repeal, of these laws, and that the more speedy these measures were, the more soothing would they be to the parties interested, as well as the more effectual for their objects. He was pleased to hear the noble lord call upon the House to legislate upon that question, not as one affecting the interests, or supposed interests, of one party only, but as one of great and general importance. The House had already, by a most marked and he believed, unexpected majority, shewn the sense it entertained, for the just claims of the Dissenters; but he believed he was warranted in saying, that amongst many, if not the great majority, of those who voted for going into the committee, there prevailed the greatest difference of opinion, as to the mode in which the proposed relief ought to be afforded. He had contended, when the question was brought forward very recently, that the interests and feelings of the Established Church were, in this matter, entitled to

821
special consideration; and he had thought it not amiss to remark, that in a case in which, confessedly, great weight was given to the feelings displayed by the Dissenting body, in refraining from pressing on the attention of the House matters deeply affecting their interests generally, that the feelings manifested by others—manifested by a body which had been cherished for centuries by the country—were worthy of similar consideration. For his own part, he trusted he had shewn, by his vote and his speech, that he did not attach any undue weight to the alarms of that Church, but wished to try the question between them and those others who were affected by the laws, with impartiality—to strike a balance between them as evenly as he could, and to give to both the attention and consideration which they deserved. There was another reason why he would not act on this proposition, without a due regard to the feelings of the Church; and it was, because the decorous, wise, and dignified silence, which had been observed on this occasion by that body, constituted a special claim on the consideration of the House, and he hoped the Commons of Great Britain would not be slow in attending to that claim. He was particularly entitled to state this, because he had said, on a former evening, that he did not think the eight-and-thirty years silence of the Dissenting body formed any bar against their claims. But the House might be assured, that, although the Church had been silent upon this subject, it was far from being indifferent, and that for many years past the greatest solicitude had been felt by its members. On this point he begged leave to adduce the authority of Mr. Justice Blackstone; whose dictum on this subject had almost passed into a proverb. That distinguished lawyer had called these two acts "the bulwarks of the Established Church" [cries of "No, no."]. He thought this point was a matter of so much notoriety, that there was no necessity for any explanation. But, as the fact was challenged, and as he had taken the passage down, he begged leave to read it. Mr. Justice Blackstone, then said, "In order the better to secure the Established Church against perils from non-conformists of all denominations, Infidels, Turks, Jews, Heretics, Papists, and Sectaries, there are, however, two bulwarks erected called the Corporatoin and Test acts." Such was the opinion of Mr. Justice Blackstone; and he must say, that
822
the silence of the Dissenters for thirty-eight years, with respect to those laws, had, particularly as churchmen were concerned, drawn the eyes of the public from them, and led to error with reference to them. The suggestion, therefore, which he had thrown out, with respect to the policy of a Suspension bill, he would adhere to as a just one. That course of proceeding would afford an opportunity to individuals to acquire more correct views than generally prevailed on the subject at present. He confessed he did not think the principle of suspension was the best course; but he would rather see some measure proposed of a moderated character, which would have a fair chance of passing both Houses of parliament; which would render unnecessary the calling the attention of parliament to the subject again, and which would close up for ever the sources of animosity that had been long existing, and which, though they had the appearance of healing, might, by injudicious treatment, be rendered more virulent than ever. This he would say to government, that if they allowed the present subject to grow up as a bone of contention, in the same way as another great question had been allowed to grow up, the country would be visited by two plagues instead of one. He must say, that his view of the question had somewhat changed since he addressed the House on Tuesday night. He had turned the subject in his mind, and no man, who considered the question at all, could leave out of his calculation the probabilities of amicably terminating this dispute by any measure that might be proposed. Now, looking to that point he confessed that he could not give his hearty concurrence to this proposition. He did not think that it would answer the intended purpose. They ought not to meet these laws by a simple repeal. How did they act with regard to the Catholic question? Was not every bill introduced for their relief accompanied by some securities? In the bill brought forward in 1825, was there not an oath introduced, which was to be taken by Catholics who might be appointed to any situation under government, disclaiming all hostility to the existing establishment? That oath, almost totidem verbis, had been taken by the Irish Roman Catholics for the last thirty or forty years. Why, it might be asked, did he cite this? Why, because he considered that the compliance by the Dissenters, with some such

823
declaration as this, would have the effect of removing much of the fear, and creating much of that confidence among the members of the Established Church, which he thought necessary to the perfect success of their desires. There was, then, a practical mode of relief for the Dissenters, combined with perfect security to the Established Church. But he would say, that if the present parliament put an end to the Test and Corporation acts, without any protection being given to that Church, very little satisfaction would be given to the people; and he conceived that it would be very difficult to have such a bill passed into a law. If, in the course of the proceeding of the bill through the House, either that which he had pointed out, or any other equivalent provision was made, he, for one, should be exceedingly rejoiced to see thereby an end put to the existing system; but he could not consent to the unqualified repeal of these acts. The object which he had in view might be attended by a bill of suspension, which would afford security to the Church, and at the same time, free the Dissenters from every annoyance. It was not his intention himself to propose such a measure; but if the bill which might hereafter be proposed to the House did not meet with approbation, it might be well to consider whether the government itself ought not to take a step in the business.
Lord J. Russellagreed entirely with his hon. friend, that it was a matter of great importance to conciliate the good-will of the Church of England. He was ready to agree to every thing that did not tend to encourage what he considered, to be a very unfounded and mischievous opinion; namely, that these acts afforded any security to the Church of England. He felt a strong objection to the plan of his hon. friend, because it would have the effect of keeping alive those feelings that ought to be suppressed. If a suspension bill were agreed to, the Church of England, on the one side, would look with anxiety for its revival, as their security, while, on the other, the Dissenters would view its enactment as a mark of their degradation. The great reason, however, which induced him to object to such a course was, because it militated against the total repeal of these acts. He thought, however, that there might be introduced into the repeal bill something palatable to the Church, without imposing any ob-
824
noxious form of proceeding on the Dissenters. If the government would pledge itself to any form of words, which, while it gave sufficient security to the Church, did not wound the feelings of the Dissenters, to that he was ready to agree; but his great object was the entire repeal of the existing laws.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, that when it was considered that it was not until two o'clock on Monday morning that the motion of the noble lord was carried by a majority of forty-four, he thought that a longer period might be permitted to intervene between the success of that motion and the renewal of a discussion in the committee on the important subject to which that motion referred. For himself, he begged to declare that he had been so engaged during the last two days, that he had neither had time to consult with others upon the subject, nor of forming his own opinion conclusively upon it. But, after the decisive majority with which the motion had been carried, he would put it to the noble lord whether, for the sake of having his measure followed up with final success, he would not be disposed to accept some alternative, instead of the absolute and entire repeal of the Test and Corporation acts. The noble lord should bear in mind, that many members who voted for his motion on the former night, voted only for going into a committee upon these acts, but abstained from pledging themselves to go the full length of a total and unqualified repeal of them. To insure the continued support of those members, it would be worth while to consider whether some mode short of repeal might not advantageously be adopted. Another inducement to the noble lord should be found in the natural anxiety the whole House entertained, that those religious animosities which had been alluded to might be entirely removed, instead of being increased, as they would be, if the measure adopted by the legislature was not one of general satisfaction to the whole community. Again, if the redress of a real practical grievance was the object of the noble lord, and not merely the triumph of an abstract principle, would it not be desirable to shape the measure in such a manner as that it would meet the concurrence of both branches of the legislature, and not set them in collision on a subject which might exasperate feelings which they were all anxious to allay. In offering these suggestions, he wished again to be under-

825
stood as neither having concerted with others, nor having yet matured his own opinion upon it. The great point which had been objected to by those who supported the repeal was the principle of the law which made the Sacramental test a qualification for office. This was said to constitute the material grievance: for, although, in admission to certain corporate offices, this qualification was not enforced, yet in other corporations it did operate as a practical exclusion from these offices. Although the law in some instances was overlooked and Dissenters admitted, and although in a few corporations it was enforced, yet these few instances did not shew the whole extent of the grievance: for, in many instances, the apprehension of the penalty being called into existence prevented many Dissenters from aspiring to offices for which, but for such apprehension, they would become candidates. It was difficult, therefore, and, indeed, almost impossible, to ascertain the extent of the practical grievance. This point was forcibly urged on the former evening. In stating this ground he admitted it was entitled to the utmost attention, and therefore he suggested the expediency of not precipitating a decision to night. There was, besides this, another objection. The preamble of the bill was not in unison with the different clauses, but this he would not enter into at present; he would only appeal to the noble lord, if he would be content with the suspension of the acts, so far as regarded the Sacramental test, with the view of obtaining the consent of the whole legislature; and whether it would not be better, in order to put an end to a practical evil, to agree to a measure, though less perfect than might be wished, for the purpose of meeting the wishes of the two houses of parliament. At all events, he thought the question ought to be open for discussion; that no pledge should be given by any member on either side, and that, above all, every thing should be avoided which could excite animosity or angry feelings. He, therefore, appealed to the noble lord, whether it would be prudent to come to a decision on such an important question, after only a few hours' consideration; and hoped that the House would agree to postpone the discussion at least for a few hours.
Lord Althorpsaid, he had hoped that the right hon. gentleman would have proposed some measure which the House could
826
adopt, or at least would have pointed but those parts of the bill proposed by his noble friend, which appeared to him objectionable. This, however, he had not done: all he had done was, to ask for delay. He agreed with the hon. member for Devonshire, that the difficulty lay not in devising what oaths might be necessary, but in passing the bill. On his part, he was ready to vote for any security which might be considered necessary for the protection of the Church. He had always expressed the same sentiments when the Catholic question was discussed, and he entertained the same views with regard to this measure. He would agree to any security, provided it did not continue those disabilities of which the Dissenters at present complained; but he was afraid the proposition of the hon. member for Devonshire was not such as he could consent to. As far as he understood him, he seemed to propose a suspension of the laws for a certain time, in order to see the effect which it might produce. He agreed with him, that it was desirable to avoid angry discussion: but who would say, if this measure was only partially decided, that it might not be renewed from time to time, and the discussions become every time more irritating? He could not agree to postpone the question, and hoped that his noble friend would not consent to it.
Dr. Phillimoresaid, he supported the repeal of these acts, on the conviction that it was consistent with the best interests of the established church. He regarded the existence of them as a scandal, which for the credit of the Church should be removed. The simple repeal was proposed by the noble lord; as an amendment to that it was proposed by an hon. baronet to suspend these acts. In his opinion suspension or repeal, for a time, could do no good: as when the time for renewing arrived, fresh dissatisfaction and animosity would be naturally evinced. If by a short oath, unobjectionable to the Dissenters, the objections of those who were opposed to the repeal could be removed, he would not oppose it. If the relief at present prayed for was granted to the Dissenters, it would furnish an additional ground for acceding to the claims of the Catholics. In reply to a question which had been put by the right hon. Secretary, on a former occasion—why in the bill introduced last session, by an hon. baronet, was it not proposed to release the Dissenters from the operation of the Test and

827
Corporation acts?—the reason was, that the object of that bill merely was to raise the Catholics to the level of the Dissenters.
Mr. Wilmot Hortonsaid, he had voted a few nights ago most cordially for the repeal of the laws in question; for he was one who did not believe that the established church was at all protected by them. But, whatever his abstract opinions upon any question were, he was bound to adopt that course which he thought, in the long run, most sure to carry his policy into execution. A right hon. gentleman, now unfortunately no more, had stated, last year, that he opposed the repeal of the Corporation and Test acts, because he conceived that that repeal would militate against the general cause of the Catholics: now he had no hesitation to declare, that he believed that right hon. gentleman himself could not have supported the indemnity system, subject to the real case of grievance which had, in the present debate, been made out against it. At the same time he was not himself entirely of opinion, that the objection of the right hon. gentleman to whom he alluded had been without foundation; or that, when the acts before the House were repealed, some slight loss of strength to the Catholic question might not arise. He was no advocate for delay; he would carry both the question before the House and the Catholic question, that very evening, if he could. And, if he saw reason to believe that the repeal of the laws affecting the Dissenters alone could be carried, without endangering that unanimity of feeling which prevailed with respect to religious disabilities, he would support it. But, if there was a doubt upon this point, he should be induced to hesitate. Unanimity of feeling was his first object; and if that could be best secured by the course of suspension, suspension was the policy which he should prefer. If he were put to his election, to support, without any qualification, the proposition of the noble lord, or to reject it, he should undoubtedly vote in its favour; but he wished the noble lord would consider the suggestion of his right hon. friend.
Mr. Peelhoped that the noble lord would postpone his motion for three or four days. The resolution declared that it was the opinion of the committee, that the acts should be repealed; therefore, if a bill was brought in upon the report of that
828
committee, it would be inconsistent afterwards to introduce a clause by which the acts were only to be suspended.
Mr. Wynnsaid, he was favourable to a total repeal. Any partial measure would only have the effect of keeping the grievance alive. The making the Sacramental Test the qualification to office, was the scandal of the Established Church. There could not be a stronger instance than the one referred to, of the last chief magistrate of London, who, it was well known, was a Dissenter, but was nevertheless obliged to take the Sacrament according to the observance of the Established Church, in order to qualify for office. He had no hesitation in saying, that he preferred the repeal to the suspension. He believed that no cause could make the existence of the laws complained of again necessary; but, if they ever should become so, the parliament of that day would find no difficulty in re-enacting them. Repeal, in his opinion, was the only proper course. It was impossible to suppose, after the decision of Tuesday night, that the Dissenters would rest satisfied with suspension.
Mr. G. Bankesthought, that as many members had not yet made up their minds as to the course which ought to be pursued, the decision of the question ought, for the present, to be postponed.
Mr. Calcraftthought that, after the large majority of the other night, there would be no difficulty, at least until they came into committee on the bill. He believed that the object of the right hon. Secretary was conciliation; but he put it to him, whether delay was the way most likely to effect it. They had heard that night of animosities and probable bickerings; but an annual Suspension bill would not allay that irritation: it would tend to keep open jealousy; and if any serious difference did, in the course of time, arise, the friends to the Church might ask the recall of that suspension. He, therefore, thought the best way was to forward the repeal with as little delay as possible.
Mr. Fergussonsupported the repeal, as the only course likely to satisfy the Dissenters, and as that to which he considered the House had partly consented. It was a remarkable circumstance in the late debate, that not a single member had been found to defend these acts; and if indefensible, they ought not to be continued.
Mr. Percevalunderstood the proposition of the right hon. Secretary to be made

829
with a sincere view of meeting the wishes of the noble lord. He thought that object would be more forwarded by the postponement of the discussion, than by forcing the House to come to a vote.
Mr. Secretary Peelregretted the continuance of the debate, as it seemed likely to disturb that harmony which had characterized the earlier stages of their proceedings; but he put it to the noble lord whether a short delay would not be the most consistent? After the unforeseen majority, he was not prepared, and he believed that many other members were not prepared, to say what course it would be most proper to adopt. By the unexpected decision which the House had come to, it became desirable that it should suspend further proceedings for a short time, to consider the whole bearings of the question, and the consequences of that decision. The noble lord would not prejudice his view of the question by consenting to the delay. If he (Mr. P.) had now intended to bring the question of suspension or repeal to a decision, he would have given the noble lord notice. But he had not considered the subject sufficiently. He could not yet say what would be the best course to adopt, for he had strong objections to adopt the suggestion, that an oath should be substituted as a protection for the Church establishment.
Sir C. Colesaid, he would grapple at once with the objections to the repeal of the Corporation and Test acts. It was said that they were a barrier to the Established Church. If so, they were a barrier of glass, which any man might break to pieces in a minute. It was a great hardship to the Protestant Dissenters of England, that they should have acts hanging over their heads, which did not affect those of Scotland and Ireland.
Lord John Russellsaid, that if adjournment would promote the measure, and give satisfaction to the Dissenters, he would not object to it. The only question, he maintained, now under consideration, was repeal or suspension. The question of repeal had been fully taken into consideration. It was included in all the speeches, all the arguments, and in the vote of the House. If he thought that by giving time, the House would agree to his proposition, he would most readily accede to it; but he felt quite confident, that no time would suffice to produce a different conviction in those who were now opposed to the repeal.
830
The right hon. gentleman looked only to securities for the Established Church; while his (lord J. R. 's) object was to give satisfaction to both parties—the numerous body of petitioning Dissenters, and the members of the Established Church. The right hon. gentleman himself did not know that the suspension would satisfy the party whose interests he considered; but he (lord J. R.) did know that it would not satisfy the Dissenters. He was convinced, after the majority of the other night, that to vote for the suspension would excite greater irritation than if the House had at first refused to take up the subject. With these feelings, considering that the course now proposed was in fact putting the question for suspension or repeal, he must persist in his proposition.
Mr. Estcourthoped there would be an adjournment. It had been said, that if any member had been taken by surprise, the supporters of the repeal would consent to an adjournment. He believed that several members were so situated. He should support the suspension of the acts in preference to their repeal.
Sir E. Knatchbullsaid, that the right hon. Secretary asked for time, merely to consider the mode in which the measure could be best carried into effect. He concurred in that view, and was sorry that the noble lord had not evinced a similar feeling.
Lord Miltonbegged to refer the committee to the exact words of the notice of motion given by the noble lord. They were "repeal of the Corporation and Test, acts." What, then, became of the objections of hon. members? Away with these idle pretences; which those who made them knew were pretences; their only object being to regain the vantage ground they had lost, and by delay, to defeat the Dissenters, and not the Dissenters only, but the best interests of the Church.
Mr. Secretary Peelwarmly repelled the noble lord's imputations; and declared, upon his honour, that they were wholly foreign to his motives. He had been most unjustly accused of not being actuated by a conciliatory spirit in this discussion. All he would say was, that, after what had passed, he would not only not propose suspension, but would not even accept delay; although that delay was proposed for purposes which, if his proposition had been accepted in the spirit in which it had been made, might have turned out satis-

831
factory to all parties. He would leave the noble lord to take the course which his judgment pointed out to him; declining any delay; but reserving to himself the right, at any future stages of the bill to adopt such measures as might appear to him advisable.—The right hon. gentleman shortly after left the House.
Sir T. Lethbridgeapplauded the determined and dignified conduct of the right hon. gentleman. He had come down to the House to vote with the noble mover, in conformity with the decision of the majority of the House; and he had hoped that the measure would have been completed with the temper which ought to be observed in considering a question of so much importance. But instead of friendly co-operation, the noble member for Yorkshire had thrown out the symbol, sign, and ensign of hostility.
Mr. Wilmot Horton, in reference to the intimation on the part of the noble member for Yorkshire, that those who wished for the delay of a few days proceeded upon false pretences, said he repelled with indignation the imputation attempted to be cast upon him.
Lord Miltonbegged to state, in explanation, that, when he had heard that some members conceived that the repeal of the acts was not the object of the noble lord's motion he had desired the clerk to give him the book, that he might show the exact nature of the motion; that repeal was the end in view, and that those who Stated the contrary were not correct.
Mr. V. Fitzgeraldobserved that the notice was to repeal the acts, but the motion itself had been for a committee to consider them. He regretted the tone manifested by the noble lord who spoke last, and his introduction into the discussion of unauthorized and unjust aspersions upon those who had differed from him. This was the last thing that the noble mover would desire. He hoped there would be a return to the spirit and temper with which the subject had been introduced, and to which it owed mainly the success it had received.
Mr. Calcraftintreated the committee to consider the great interests involved in the decision of the present question. He regretted that any irritation had arisen, and trusted it would be allowed to subside.
Lord J. Russellregretted the tone which the discussion had assumed. It
832
was his opinion, that as no other proposition but suspension was made, it was needless to defer the discussion. At the same time he did not think that the right hon. gentleman had any other object in proposing delay than the convenience of all parties. He imputed motives to no one.
Lord Miltonwas sorry for what had occurred. He had no intention to excite anger.
The resolution was then agreed to. Previous to which several of the ministers retired from the House.
Mr. Littletonexpressed his fears that this question, after what had passed, would no longer be discussed without an infusion of party spirit. He regretted the speech which had been delivered by the noble lord, and doubted much whether it would not be doing mischief.
Colonel Davieswas of opinion, that those who allowed paltry, petty, and personal, feeling to interfere with the broad path of their duty, were unworthy of a seat in that, or in any other House.
Sir G. Warrenderhoped, that whatever irritation might have been excited, it would not lead to any unfortunate result to this most important question. He must declare, that if any circumstance could induce him to withdraw his confidence from an administration, it would be the circumstance he had just witnessed; namely, the secession of ministers from the House. This was the first time that he had seen all the ministers retire from the House before a decision had been come to on a great question which had been agitating all men's minds. He begged pardon: he saw one minister left.
Mr. V. Fitzgeraldthought his hon. friend, could not have heard the speech of his right hon. friend; who had expressed his intention neither to oppose the motion nor to support it. He now learned for the first time that it was a singular course for a minister to leave the House to avoid voting. The discussion was at an end. If he had remained in the House, and a division had been called for, he could not have avoided voting. [Mr. Peel here re-entered the House.]
Lord F. L. Gowersaid, that the hon. baronet had announced the probability of his withdrawing his valuable support from a minister who was liable to moments of irritation. Now, he must say, that if he found his right hon. friend to be a minister

833
whose blood was so cold that he could not rise under an unmerited attack—under the imputation of acting on false pretences—he, in his turn, would withdraw his support from him. In his right hon. friend's secession from the House under the circumstances that had taken place, he entirely concurred. He (lord F. L. Gower) did not take the same course, because, though he had voted in the minority on the former evening, yet, seeing the majority against his view of the question, he would, if called upon to decide between suspension and repeal, undoubtedly give his vote for the latter. For these reasons he did not follow his right hon. friend, upon whom, in his absence, the gallant officer had chosen to make a personal attack.
Sir G. Warrendersaid, that when he commented on the departure of his right hon. friend he was not aware that he had declared his intention of not voting on the question. He was not apt to give way to feelings of irritation, but he supposed that, on this occasion, he had caught the infection. If he had said any thing objectionable, he was sorry for it.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, that he was occupied very agreeably up stairs when the intelligence was conveyed to him that his gallant friend was ready to withdraw his support from the government; nevertheless, he did not allow the intelligence to disturb his repast. The fact was, that having fasted since nine o'clock that morning, and being completely exhausted, he had retired to take some refreshment. He had returned to listen to the attack which was made upon him, but he feared that he should again provoke the indignation of his gallant friend by pursuing the same course by which it had been excited; for it was his intention to leave the House when the question should be put, if it had not already been put from the chair. When he left the House, he intended no disrespect to the noble lord, or to the committee.
The House resumed: and the report was ordered to be brought up on Tuesday.