rose to present a petition, signed by between seven and eight thousand resident householders of Edinburgh, complaining of what was most unjustly called the representation of that city. He had presented petitions of the same nature for several sessions; and each year added strength to the complaints of the petitioners. It was a peculiar fact, that six persons belonging to the town council, which enjoyed the monopoly of appointing the representatives of Edinburgh, had signed the present petition. In so doing, they had afforded an incontestable proof that their sympathy with the great mass of the inhabitants of the city, was much greater than their sympathy with the small body constituting the corporation; and none could be better qualified to form a judgment on this subject, than they who were aware of what passed within the precincts of the select few, by whom the choice of representatives was made. On the first occasion when he presented this petition, he had presented it in the firm conviction that it was founded in truth and justice; and nothing had since occurred to alter that conviction. He had likewise presented it, because he believed that the citizens of Edinburgh would prosecute it with prudence, firmness, and perseverance: in that expectation, too, he had not been disappointed. He had also presented it, because he was convinced, not only that it would be prudent and just for the House to grant the reform which the petitioners asked, but also that it would consolidate and strengthen all that was realty good and valuable in the constitution. By widening its basis, they would give additional strength and firmness to the superstructure reared upon it. In conclusion, the hon. member gave notice, that he would hereafter fix a day upon which he would bring the state of the representation in Edinburgh under the notice and consideration of the House.

said, that as the hon. and learned member had given notice of his intention of fixing a day for the discussion of the representative system of Scotland, he should not follow him at present into the remarks which he had made upon that subject. He should only say, that he was sorry that the learned gentleman had not presented his petition, when the representative for Edinburgh was in the House, as he could have gone more ably into the subject than he himself could do. There was, however, nothing peculiar in the representation of Edinburgh which required a particular law to cure and remedy it. The House had no more right to take away the exclusive right of election from the corporation of Edinburgh, than it had to take it away from the corporations of Bath and Portsmouth, which equally enjoyed it. Such rights were never taken away from any parties by the House, unless it was shown that they had been guilty of gross corruption in the exercise of them.

observed, that the hon. member had argued as if the existence of an abuse in one country was a sufficient excuse for the existence of another abuse in another country. He trusted that the House would take the state of the representation of Edinburgh into its immediate consideration, as nothing could be more disgraceful and unfair. The representative for that town was returned by thirty-three individuals, and not by the great mass of the property and respectability of the town. The consequence of this was, that almost every man's property in Edinburgh was disposed of, without his consent or knowledge. The government, which was making wholesome reforms in many of our institutions, could not do better than make a reform here; for no where could it be more salutary. He should be happy to see a perfect system of representation established. The interest and the honour of the country both required it, and the minister who carried such a system into effect would deserve and obtain a glorious immortality.

said, that when he brought in the bill of which he had given notice, he should expect to meet with strenuous opposition from the hon. baronet. That hon. baronet was intimately connected with those who supported the system of which he complained. He now gave notice that he would, on the 13th of April, ask for leave to bring in a bill to amend and alter the representation of Edinburgh.

said, he would support the bill whenever it came before the House. The system of Scotch representation, both in boroughs and counties, was highly disgraceful, and required immediate reform.

presented a petition from the working manufacturers of Gorbals and other places, in the neighbourhood of Glasgow, praying for an alteration in the Corn laws. The hon. member observed, that although he considered the high price of corn to be almost as prejudicial to the farmer as to the manufacturer, he was not inclined to throw the ports entirely open at once. Whatever was done must be done gradually; but unless something was done, it would be impossible for the manufacturing labourers of the country to obtain subsistence for their families, at the present low rate of wages.

said, that if permission were given to import corn into this country without restriction, the result of it would be visible in a few years, in the production of a famine.

complained of the interlocutory mode of discussing so important a subject, which had recently been adopted in both Houses of Parliament. He thought that the petitioners had no right to complain at present of the high price of corn. Their language appeared to him very like the language of rebellion. No other construction could properly be put upon the phrase, that the bonds of society must be broken, if the Corn laws continued much longer in operation.

thought that no such construction could be put upon the petition in common fairness. It might be that the language of the petitioners was strong; but it ought to be recollected, that they were not gifted with that temper, patience, and nice discrimination, which were the attributes of the hon. member for Surrey. At that moment the price of meat, bread, cheese, and butter, was excessive. Now, the manufacturers were receiving low wages; and, with low wages, it was impassible for them to obtain the articles of food which he had just mentioned. These were plain truths, which sooner or later must force themselves on the attention of parliament.

was surprised that petitions like the present had not been received from every manufacturing district in the country. He was, however, not surprised at the language of the petitioners. All he was astonished at was, pat similar petitions were not poured in from every manufacturing district in the Country.

condemned severely the tope of the petition, and he could only understand from it, that a threat was intended by the expression of breaking down the bonds of society. The petitioners were much deceived, if they expected that the distresses, under which they were now suffering, would be alleviated by the repeal of the Corn-laws. Whenever those laws were repealed, that repeal would be followed by a great diminution in the demand for their labour.

protested against the assumption that the petition contained any improper language, still less any thing which Could be construed into a threat. He would be the last person to justify the use of improper language; but he thought that nothing ought to deter members from presenting petitions which contained perhaps a warm, but nevertheless an honest statement of the effect which the grievances they endured bad produced on their, minds. He thought that no time could be called improper for such a purpose.

said, he could not think that any advantage could be gained by discussions like the present, which agitated a subject confessed to be one of the utmost importance, difficulty, and delicacy. He was sure that no person in, that House, wished to repress the voice of the people on any subject. The hon. gentleman thought the petition, which he had presented was a specimen of fine writing; but even he thought that they had painted their being supposed that be wished to prevent any representation of the distresses of the people, he must be permitted to deprecate a discussion, which could in no way tend to throw a light upon the subject, but which was calculated to produce asperity between classes which it was; most desirable to conciliate. A discussion, if any should take place, ought to be temperate and dispassionate, and, above all, bitterness and asperity of language ought to be avoided,

said, that however desirable it might be thought by the hon. gentleman to avoid discussions on these subjects, it was obviously impossible to do so; and, indeed, when it was considered that upon these occasions alone the House had an opportunity of hearing the sentiments of gentlemen who did not take any other part in the debates, it might be doubted whether it was advisable to discourage such discussions. At least they gave the country an opportunity of knowing the sentiments of members on this subject, and of ascertaining who did and who did not approve of any alteration in the law as it stood. If any evil consequences had been felt, they must be attributed solely to his majesty's ministers', and to the delay which they had occasioned in the settlement of this important question. He had understood that it was to be brought on in the course of the present session, and that the right hon. the president of the Board of Trade was to have submitted to the House his views on the subject. Ministers might have grounds for the alteration which they contemplated. He believed they were mistaken; but as the question must be decided, he thought the postponement of the discussion was extremely objectionable. At the ensuing general election, gentlemen would be called on, in almost every place, to state their opinions on this subject; and unless they knew what were the intentions of ministers, it would be impossible for them satisfactorily to answer. If the country could but once know what the government proposed to do, there would be an end of all discussion; but while they abstained from stating that, the uncertainty produced the greatest in convenience. It was not, to be sure difficult to guess from their measures what they intended to do. He had no doubt that the right hon. gentleman meant to approximate the laws relating to corn as much as possible to those which he had established en other subjects—that ha would place a protecting duty on corn, and then leave its importation, subject to that duty, unrestricted. But the question was, what was the amount of that duty to be? Why should this be concealed? There had been too many proofs that the people were to be reasoned out of their erroneous opinions, to doubt, that, upon a fair statement of the advantages to be derived from a change of the system with regard to corn, they would readily concur in it. Why, then, should it be left in mystery? Why should the people be left, in consequence of their ignorance on this subject, to present petitions to the House, drawn up by nobody knew whom, and the statements in which were inflamed by their own fears and the advice of improper persons? If the House would be firm, resolute, and consistent, all the difficulties would vanish. The people might be assured that the rate of their wages had nothing whatever to do with the price of corn. He hoped that corn would be cheaper; and if there were plentiful crops, that would of necessity be the case; but it would be in vain to look to any other cause than the bounty of Providence for producing that effect.

explained, that he had no wish to repress a discussion on the subject of the Corn-laws, if any argument was to be offered to the House; but when he had heard the petitioners using the terms "relentless obduracy," he had been apprehensive that a debate might arise, the tendency of which would be to produce irritation, without throwing any light on the subject which had occasioned it. With respect to the sentiments of the government on this question, he hoped the hon. gentleman would himself admit, that as a time had been fixed for its discussion, ministers would do better to reserve themselves, than to embrace the opportunity which was now offered, by the figurative petition from Gorbals.

agreed, that it would be advisable to have the question of the Corn-laws settled as soon as might be practicable; but since a delay had taken place, he hoped ministers would avail themselves of it to consider the nature and extent of the burthens which at present attached to the land. Before any alteration could be effected in the nature of the Corn-laws, those burthens must be alleviated, and the agriculturists brought upon the same footing with respect to the demands as the manufacturing classes.

rose, and said:^*

I hope, Sir, that the House is prepared to give me its attention, whilst I explain the object of those measures connected with the Criminal Law which I am about to submit to its consideration. To many, I fear, this subject may appear barren and uninviting. It can borrow no excitement from political feelings, nor can it awaken the hopes or fears of conflicting parties; but it involves higher interests, it concerns the security of property—the prevention of crime—the moral habits of the people—and it prefers, therefore, a just and imperative demand on the serious attention of parliament. I claim that attention on another ground. Of all the subjects which fall within the range of our deliberations, none perhaps has been more neglected than the Criminal Law. "Inter arma silent leges," is a trite remark applied to periods of civil dissention. I fear that it might with equal justice be said that amidst the excitement of party conflicts, the true principles which should regulate the Criminal jurisprudence of the country have been too frequently disregarded. I conjure the House, therefore, by these high considerations, by the paramount importance of the subject, and by the reparation which is due for past neglect, now to entertain with favour and attention, a proposal for the simplification and amendment of some important branches of the law. The two measures which I mean to submit to the House, are a bill for the consolidation of the Statute-law of England, relating to the crime of theft. And a bill to improve the administration of justice in some particulars, which I will hereafter specify. And first, with respect to the bill for the consolidation of the law relating to theft. I presume that I shall not have to combat at the outset any objections to the principle of an attempt to consolidate and simplify the criminal law. It appears so conformable to the dictates of common sense, that the law, of which all men are supposed to have cognizance—and which all are bound under heavy penalties to obey, should be as precise and intelligible

*From the original edition, printed for Hatchard and Son, Piccadilly.

as it can be made—that it is almost needless to fortify by reasoning or authority, the first impressions of the understanding. If authority were required, I could cite some of the most illustrious names that have adorned the civil and judicial annals of this country, the names of lawyers and of statesmen, who have either expressed a decided opinion in favour of the attempt to simplify the law, or who have been actually engaged in the undertaking. To one of these, the first in point of antiquity, as the first in weight and esteem, I will refer, and thus preclude the necessity of summoning other less important testimony. The lord chancellor Bacon submitted to king James 1st a proposal for amending the laws of England. In that treatise, short as it is, is comprised every argument that can be cited in favour of the measure of which I am speaking, every objection is foreseen, and satisfactorily confuted. The lapse of two hundred and fifty years has increased the necessity of the measure which lord Bacon then proposed, but it has produced no argument in favour of the principle, no objection averse to it, which, to use the words of Cowley applied to Bacon himself, "from the mountain-top of his exalted wit," he did not anticipate. The. House will allow me to substitute for my own imperfect expressions the emphatic terms in which lord Bacon has recorded the suggestions of a mighty intellect. In addressing his sovereign, he gays, that his object is not to tax the laws, "I speak," says he, "only by way of perfecting them, which is easiest in the best things; for that which is far amiss hardly receiveth amendment, but that which hath already, to that more may be given." "Besides, what I shall propound, is not to the matter of the laws, but to the manner of their registry, expression, and tradition: so that it giveth them rather new light than any new nature." He proceeds to state, that for the safety and convenience of the proposal which he makes, "it is good to consider and answer those objections or scruples which may arise or be made against this work." Objection the first, "That it is a thing needless; and that the law as it now is, is in a good estate comparable to any foreign law; and that it is not possible for the wit of man in respect of the frailty thereof, to provide against the uncertainties and evasions or omissions of law." The following is the answer of lord Bacon: "For the comparison with foreign laws, it is in vain to speak of it, for men will never agree about it. Our lawyers will maintain for our municipal laws—civilians, scholars, travellers will be of the other opinion." But, Sir, I must interrupt my reference to lord Bacon by remarking that the lapse of years has supplied us with an answer to the first part of this objection which lord Bacon had not to urge. Foreign nations have condensed and simplified their laws—and have disentitled us to vindicate the confusion or uncertainty of our own statutes, by the boast (weak and fruitless as an argument, if it were well founded) that those statutes are less confused and less uncertain than the ordinances of other states. "Certain it is," says lord Bacon, "that our laws as they now stand, are subject to great uncertainties, and variety of opinion, delays and evasion." "Mark," he observes, "whether the doubts that arise are only in cases not in ordinary experience, or in cases which happen every day. If in the first only, impute it to the frailty of man's foresight, that cannot reach by law to all cases; but if in the latter, be assured there is a fault in the law."—"There is an inconvenience of penal laws obsolete and out of use: for that it brings a gangrene, neglect, and habit of disobedience upon other wholesome laws that are fit to be continued in practice and execution; so that our laws endure the torment of Mazentius. The living die in the arms of the dead." The second objection foreseen by lord Bacon is this:—"That it is a great innovation, and innovations are dangerous beyond foresight." He replies, "All purgings and medicines, either in the civil or natural body, are innovations, so as that argument is a common-place against all noble reformations. But the truth is, that this work ought not to be termed or held for any innovation in the suspected sense." "Besides it is on the favourable part, it easeth, it presseth not, and lastly, it is rather a matter of order and explanation than of alteration." Another objection stated by lord Bacon, and that which is perhaps most frequently urged at present, is this: "That it will turn the judges, counsellors of law, and students of law, to school again, and make them to seek what they shall hold and advise for law; and it will impose a new charge upon all lawyers, to furnish themselves with new books of law." The reply is: "For the former of these, touching the new labour, it is true it would follow, if the law (the common law) were new moulded into a text law, for then men must be new to begin, and that is one of the reasons for which I disavow that course. But in the way that I now propound, the entire body and substance of law shall remain, only discharged of idle and unprofitable or hurtful matter, and illustrated by order and other helps towards the better understanding of it and judgment thereupon. For the latter—touching the new charge of books, it is not worthy the speaking of in a matter of so high importance—it might have been used of the new translation of the bible and like works." Lord Bacon adds this brief sentence pregnant with a truth too often disregarded—a truth of everlasting and universal application. "Books should follow sciences, and not sciences books." Having urged these reasons for the simplification of the Statute-law, he lays down the principles upon which it should be conducted. "For the reforming and recompiling of the Statute-law it consisted of four parts." The first, "To discharge the books of those statutes, where the case by alteration of time is vanished; as Lombards, Jews, Gauls, Half-pence, &c. Those may nevertheless remain in the libraries of antiquities, but no reprinting of them; the like of statutes long since expired and clearly repealed. The next is, to repeal all statutes which are sleeping and not of use, but yet snaring and in force; in some of these it will perhaps be requisite to substitute some more reasonable law, instead of them, agreeable to the time; in others a simple repeal may suffice. The third, that the grievousness of the penalty in many statutes he mitigated, though the ordinance stands. The last is, the reducing of concurrent statutes heaped one upon another, to one clear and uniform law." Such, Mr. Speaker, are the reasons upon which I have undertaken the measure I shall propose, and such the principles by which I have guided myself in the preparation of it. May I not add in the concluding words of lord Bacon, "this is the best way to accomplish this excellent work; of honour to your majesty's times, and of good to all times." If, Sir, there be any to whom the authority of lord Bacon may appear of too remote an antiquity, or who may consider his views too philosophic and abstract, I will for their satisfaction produce another authority more recent, and more practical—the authority of a committee of the House of Commons. In the year 1796, a committee was appointed to inspect and consider all the temporary laws then about to expire. The chairman of that committee was the present lord Colchester, and to him we are indebted on this, as on many other subjects, for one of the ablest reports that can be found on the Journals of the House of Commons. That report observes, "that a general revision of the Statute-law appears to have been often recommended from the throne—to have been petitioned for by both Houses of parliament—to have engaged the labours of successive committees, and to have been undertaken by individuals under the sanction of royal and parliamentary authority, but never to have been carried forward to any degree of maturity. After the Restoration, Finch, Solicitor-general (afterwards lord Nottingham, and lord Chancellor), serjeant Maynard, Mr. Robert Atkyns, Mr. Prynne, and others, were appointed in 1666, to be a committee, to consider of repealing such Statute-laws as they shall find necessary to be repealed, and of reducing all Statute-laws of one nature, under such a method and head as may conduce to the more ready understanding and execution of such laws. This seems to be the last recorded instance of this sort. And thus it is," says the report, "that parliament has hitherto failed to accomplish this general revision; and has now suffered it to sleep for more than a century, although the delay of it has annually augmented its necessity." Now, Sir, what I propose is, to break this sleep of a century; of more than a century indeed, for thirty years have passed away since the report of 1796, and each successive year has added its own heavy incumbrances to the Statute-book I shall, Sir, with the leave of the House present a bill uniting into one statute all the enactments that exist, and are fit to be retained, relating to the crime of theft, and to offences immediately connected with theft, such, for instance, as the receiving of stolen property. I select the laws relating to theft in the first instance, because I consider the crime of theft to constitute the most important class of crime. There are acts no doubt of much greater malignity, of a much more atrocious character than the simple act of robbery; but looking to the committals and convictions for crime, it will at once fee seen, that those for theft so far exceed the committals and convictions for any other species of offence, that there can be no question of it's paramount importance in the catalogue of offences against society, and that, if the laws relating to this class of offence can be simplified and united into one statute, we shall have made a most material advance towards the revision of our criminal Statute-law. By a reference to the criminal returns for England and Wales it will be found that in the last year, the year 1825,14,437 persons were charged with various crimes; Of this number not less than 12,500 persons, amounting to six-sevenths of the whole number, were charged with the crime of theft. There were charged with burglary 428, cattle-stealing 42, horsestealing 229, stealing in a dwelling-house to the Value of forty shillings 265, from the person 835, robbery on the person on the highway and other places 189, sheep-stealing 166, simple larceny 10,087. If any other offence be taken it will be seen that the numbers charged with that offence bear a very trifling proportion to the numbers charged with theft. In 1825, the same year in which 12,500 persons were charged with theft, were committed, for the crime of arson 22, for murder 94, for manslaughter 122. If a longer period be taken the result will be nearly the same. In the last seven years there have been, convictions for forgery 331, for murder 121, for perjury 43, for arson 50, while, for simple larceny alone, there have been in the same period not less than 43,000 Convictions. I need say no more to demonstrate the immense importance of the crime of theft, considered as a class of crime, and to shew the necessity of establishing, with regard to it, as clear and intelligible a law as it is possible to establish. The number of the statutes at present in force relating to this offence amounts to about ninety-two—they include a period of time extending from the reign of Henry 3rd, from the statute called the Charta Forestæ, passed in the ninth year of that king's reign, to the last year of all, the sixth of his present majesty. The number of these laws, the remote and various periods at which they have passed, will probably create an apprehension that the attempt to simplify their language, to classify their provisions, and to condense them into one statute is a hopeless undertaking. But, Sir, I hold in my hand the visible proof that the undertaking is not hopeless. Here is the draft of a bill which has been printed for the purpose of facilitating the consideration of its details previously to its introduction, and in the short compass of thirty pages, without making any rash experiment to curtail the phraseology of the existing laws, without the omission, I believe, of a single clause, which it is fitting to retain, are included all the provisions of the statute law relating to the offence of larceny. This reduction of the bulk of the law, has been effected by selecting in some instances from an heterogeneous mass of legislation heaped together in one statute upon matters perfectly unconnected and dissimilar, those enactments that relate to the protection of property from theft, and in other instances by extracting from various statutes which have been passed in particular cases, the principle upon which each was founded, substituting in lieu of various scattered enactments, giving protection to individual articles of property, one general enactment, affording protection to the class of property to which those individual articles belong. It is clear that criminal legislation has been heretofore left to the desultory and unconcerted speculations of every man who had a fancy to legislate. If an offence were committed in some corner of the land, a law sprung up to prevent the repetition, not of the species of crime to which it belonged, but of the single and specific act of which there had been reason to complain. The new enactment too was frequently stuck into the middle of a statute passed probably at the latter end of a session; to the compounding of which, every man who saw or imagined a defect in the pre-existing law, was allowed to contribute. To give an instance or two of legislation of this kind: Some member has been injured, or he has a constituent who has been injured by the stealing of madder roots, and a provision is forthwith made for the special protection for the future, of madder roots, not by a single statute, but by including the enactments directed against the stealer of madder roots, in a law of which the following is the comprehensive title: "An Act to continue several laws therein mentioned for granting liberty to carry sugars of the growth, produce, or manufacture of any of his majesty's sugar colonies in America, from the said colonies directly into foreign ports, in ships built in Great Britain, and navigated according to law; for the preventing the committing of frauds by bankrupts; for giving further encouragement for the importation of naval stores from the British colonies in America; and for preventing frauds and abuses in the admeasurement of coals in the city and liberty of Westminster: and for preventing the stealing or destroying of madder roots." I will mention another instance of the same kind. There are not less than twenty statutes relating to the preservation of trees from theft or wilful injury, some properly confined to trees alone, others relating to matters so utterly unconnected with the protection of timber, or with the crime of theft, that I shall be almost suspected of fabricating the title of a bill for the purpose of my argument. It seems to have been discovered about fity or sixty years since that the various laws which had previously passed with respect to timber, did not afford sufficient protection to hollies, thorns, and quicksets, and to save the trouble of amending the former laws—these neglected shrubs were provided for in an act, which, in taking charge of them, took charge also of the other matters referred to in the following title. "An Act for the better securing the duties of customs upon certain goods removed from the outports and other places to London; for regulating the fees of his majesty's customs in the province of Senegambia in Africa; for allowing to the receivers general of the duties on offices and employments in Scotland a proper compensation; for the better preservation of hollies, thorns, and quicksets in forests, chases, and private grounds, and of trees and underwoods in forests and chases; and for authorizing the exportation of a limited quantity of an inferior sort of barley called bigg from the port of Kirkwall in the island of Orkney." Now, Sir, what I propose is, not to lessen the security which the law gives to the owner of madder roots, not to throw open the holly or thorn to wanton depredation, but merely to transplant them to a more congenial soil than the province of Senegambia. The laws relating to trees are fruitful in instances of hasty and slovenly legislation. For instance, there passed in the 6th Geo. 3rd, two statutes for the protection of certain trees and vegetable productions in gardens, the 36th and 48th chapters, which must have passed almost concurrently. Neither of them refer to the host of antecedent statutes, and the author of chapter 48, must have been, unapprized of the labours of him who had introduced and probably was superintending at the time the progress of chapter 36; for offences which by that act are made a felony, are by chapter 48 punishable only with a fine of twenty pounds. Had the latter statute passed in a succeeding session of parliament, it would have amounted to a virtual repeal of the preceding act. There are no less than three separate acts of parliament extending the provisions of chapter 48 to particular species of trees. I will proceed to explain the material points in which I propose either to simplify and consolidate the law, or in which I propose to remedy, what appear to be glaring defects in the law; for my undertaking is not limited merely to the condensation of the statutes. Where I find any omission through which notorious guilt escapes, I propose to supply it—where I find a just principle at present only partially applied, I propose to extend it to all the cases which it ought to include. I trust the House will bear with me in this reference to details, because details are here of the utmost importance. There are on the Statute-book, twelve statutes relating to the offence of stolen goods. They are so numerous, because they are founded not upon some definite principle, but because they refer to individual articles of property. One statute punishes the receiver of stolen lead, iron, copper, brass, and bell metal. Then follows a statute to punish the receiver of stolen pewter. Another refers to jewels, plate, and watches. Then comes the general act as to all goods and chattels—but even this was not considered general enough to apply to bank notes and negotiable securities, and therefore an act was passed in the present reign for their special protection. Now, I shall expunge from the Statute-book all these special provisions, and substitute in lieu of this legislation directed to particulars, one simple and general enactment, founded on this plain principle, that he who receives, knowing it to have been stolen, any thing; whatever, the stealing of which amounts by law to a felony, shall himself be deemed guilty of felony. Surely this is the enactment which Common sense suggests as the fit enactment against the wilful receiver of stolen property, whether that property be lead or pewter, jewels or bank notes. The example to which I have last referred will sufficiently explain the mode in which I have attempted to proceed in simplifying and compressing the law, in all other cases of a similar nature. I come now to a subject of at least equal importance. The supplying of those omissions in the law which insure the impunity of guilt. Of those omissions I will give some examples. Under the law as it stands at present, it has been decided that it is not an offence, at least not an offence in the eye of the law, to rob a ready-furnished house, notwithstanding that it is a very serious offence to rob a ready-furnished lodging. It is upon record, that after the conviction of a man who robbed of some articles of plate the house which he had hired, the sentence was respited upon a doubt whether the case were within the Statute which uses the word lodging and not lodging-house. It was agreed by all the judges that the case was not within the statute, and chief baron M'Donald ordered the prisoner to be discharged, saying, "I am sorry the laws of England have not provided for your case, for I have no doubt whatever of your guilt." Again, the statute which makes it an offence to steal or destroy fish in streams, expressly refers to such streams as pass in or through an estate. If therefore the Stream, as is frequently the case, neither passes in nor through an estate, but passes between two estates, being the boundary to each, the owner of the fish forfeits his protection under the statute. Can any man doubt that these are examples of imperfection and omission in the law, which can and ought to be supplied? Can any man doubt that it is expedient to extend, as I propose to extend, the protection which the law at present gives to securities for property in the British funds, to securities for property in the funds of foreign states, and to mercantile instruments of all kinds, entitling the holder to the payment of money abroad? Is it fitting that these securities and instruments should be liable to be stolen with Immunity? Is it fitting that the stealing of a handkerchief should subject to transportation, and that the stealing of title-deeds, that the stealing of a will on which the property and existence of whole families may depend, should remain altogether exempt from penalty? The law with respect to a very frequent and very aggravated offence, the embezzlement by servants of their masters property, is at present very defective. Among the principal defects are these: It is necessary to state in the indictment, and to prove in evidence, the embezzlement of specific monies, not merely of the sum in the gross of which, the master may have been defrauded but of the particular coin or notes of which that sum consisted, which may have entirely escaped the recollection of the master. Again, if the servant has defrauded his master by the means of receiving change, he cannot be convicted at all. Supposing, for instance, the servant having 10s. to receive for his master, gives 10s. to the party from whom the money is due, and receives a one-pound note, which he embezzles, he commits no offence against the law. He cannot be convicted of embezzling the note, for that was not the property of his master, nor can he be convicted of embezzling shillings, for he has received none. The main defect in the law is this: the offence is at present a felony; now by the rules of law each act of embezzlement is considered a distinct felony, and only one distinct felony is admitted to be proved upon an indictment for felony. The prosecution therefore often fails from the impossibility of laying the whole case, the whole tissue of fraud, before the jury. The proof being confined to a single act of embezzlement, the jury leans, not unreasonably, to mercy, and frequently chooses to presume that the single act of embezzlement may have arisen from mistake, rather than to convict for the felony. I propose to remedy these defects; to admit proof that various sums have been received and misapplied by a prisoner, without requiring proof as to the specific coin or bills of which those sums consisted. I propose to alter the legal designation and character of the crime of embezzlement, to make it a misdemeanor instead of a felony, and thus to admit the proof of that which may be absolutely necessary to enable the jury to determine the real extent of the prisoner's guilt, namely, of the whole series of embezzlement, in which he may have been engaged. In the course of the observations which I have made, several cases have been mentioned in which I propose to subject to penalties, acts which at present may be committed with impunity. But I beg to observe, first, that these acts, are in every instance acts of great moral guilt, which only escape at present through the imperfection of the law; and, secondly, that the new penalties which I affix, amount in no case whatever to death; I constitute no new capital felony. I propose to extend the grasp of the law; but in no instance do 1 increase, in some I mitigate, its severity. I will mention two important examples of the abatement of penalty. The law which makes it an offence punishable with death, to steal in a dwelling-house to the amount of 40s. extends at present to all out-houses within the curtilage, as it is called. It is intended to except for the future from the operation of this law, so far as regards capital punishment, the stealing in all out-houses which are not connected with the dwelling-house by some internal communication. Another case in which it is proposed to reduce the penalties of the law, arises out of an act of the last session of parliament, which makes the robbery of gardens, without any distinction of circumstances, a transportable felony. The severity of the penalty renders this law in many instances inoperative. It is paralyzed by the stronger law of humanity and reason, which tells a man to overlook altogether the offence of the school-boy who robs an orchard, more from a wanton spirit of enterprise, than from vice, rather than consign him to a prison, and indict him for a felony. We shall give more effectual protection to the owner of this species of property if, while we retain the severer penalties for all cases of aggravated delinquency, we empower a magistrate to hear the complaint, and if he shall think fit, to dismiss the offender for the first offence on payment of a reasonable fine. I have now detailed the leading objects contemplated by the bill for consolidating the laws relating to Larceny, or I should rather say, I have given such examples of those objects as will enable the House to understand the general scope of the measure. I will now proceed to explain the outline of the other, and not less important bill, which is intended to effect improvements in the administration of the penal law generally. It is impossible, Sir, to contemplate without painful reflections, the state of this country with respect to the number and the increase of criminal offences. It is useless, it is worse than useless, to conceal from ourselves the truth that there is not in this country that security from fraud and depreciation which there ought to be in a well-constituted society: and that there has been of late years a rapid and alarming increase in the amount of that species of crime. Many causes may concur to swell the amount of crime in this country, as compared with the amount of it in some other countries of Europe. Property in this country is much greater, more generally extended, and necessarily more exposed. The freedom of action which is allowed to every man by our law, the absence of any control upon that action through the medium of police establishments, like those which exist in many countries, empowered to act upon vague suspicions, and preventing by unceasing vigilance the commission of offences that would otherwise be completed—such causes no doubt contribute in many instances to favour the early stages of vice in this country. But while I notice their existence and their effect, let it not be supposed that I am blind to the greater good which counterbalances the evil, or that it is my purpose by rash attempts at controlling the excesses which this freedom of action may engender, to impair the noble spirit, the enterprise and energy, that are its blessed offspring. I shall now proceed to submit to the House a few details with respect to the comparative numbers of criminal offenders at different periods, and I deeply regret that the result is in some particulars so unsatisfactory. In the seven years, ending December 1816, there were committed to the several gaols in England and Wales 47,522 persons charged with criminal offences. In the seven years, ending December 1825, the number was nearly double, amounting to 93,718. In the former period there were 29,361 convictions. In the latter 63,418. In the former period there were sentenced to death 4,126 persons. In the latter 7,770. In the former period 536 person were executed. In the latter period 579; being an immense reduction, let it he observed, in the number of executions as compared with capital convictions. It is a circumstance worthy of remark, that although in the country generally there would appear by these returns to have been so large an increase in the amount of crime, in the last of the two periods to which I have been referring, an increase nearly of one half the total amount, there has been by no means a corresponding increase in the number of criminal offenders in London and Middlesex, although in this district the increase of the population must have been at least as great as that in any other district. Taking the more serious offences, those to which the penalty of death is attached, we shall find that in London and Middlesex, 1,018 persons received sentence of death in the seven years ending December, 1816. In the seven years, ending December, 1825, 1,124, being an increase in capital offences of not more than one eleventh. The total number of convictions generally in the first period was 7,421. In the latter period 11,624. If reference be made to the number of executions in London and Middlesex in late years, compared with former periods, I trust we shall be warranted in concluding that crimes of an atrocious character are on the decrease, though no doubt the reduction in the number of executions must be partly attributed to a greater forbearance in carrying into effect the extreme punishment of the law. In seven years, ending with December, 1793, there were in London and Middlesex 272 persons executed. In the same period ending with December, 1825, there were 165. In two years alone 1786, and 1787, there were 138 executions for offences committed in London and Middlesex. In the three last years there were only 39. From the year 1810 to the year 1822, inclusive, there were 173 executions in England and Wales, for robbery on the highway, being at the rate of about fourteen in each year. In 1823, there were five executions for this offence. In 1824, six. In 1825, six. For the seven yeans preceding 1823, the number of convictions for this last offence were at the rate of 140 in each year. In, the last three years they have not exceeded, on the average 110. From the year 1810 to the year 1822, inclusive, there were 260 convictions in England and Wales for murder, being at the rate of 20 in each year. In the year 1823, there were 12 convictions for murder; in 1824, seventeen; in 1825, twelve. I trust, therefore, that although there has been so great an increase in late years in the total amount of committals, for crime, I am warranted in the inference that crimes of the deepest die are less frequent than they formerly were, and that they are gradually decreasing in number. With respect to, the fact that crime has not increased in London and Middlesex, in the same proportion in which it has increased in every other district of England, almost without an exception, I cannot but think that the cause of this is chiefly to be looked for in the efficiency of that police establishment, which is placed under the superintendence of the Secretary of State, an establishment consisting merely of magistrates, with no higher authority than that which any justice of the peace possesses—of constables and patrol, with no other powers than those which the common constables can exercise, but efficient and active because their whole time is devoted to the duty which they have to perform, and because a responsibility is imposed upon them, which it is very difficult to impose practically upon the gratuitous discharge of public functions. I am confident that the House will not require an apology for these general observations on the nature and extent of the criminal offences committed in this country, with which I have prefaced the explanation I will now give of the particular objects of the second measure which I propose to introduce, and which I trust I do not improperly designate a Bill to improve the Administration of the Law. This bill will regulate in some respects the proceedings connected with the administration of the law, in the various stages of a criminal prosecution. It will re-enact, and more clearly define the duty of the coroner as to taking evidence upon an inquisition of manslaughter or murder—the binding by recognisance.—and the certifying of the evidence, the recognizances and the inquisition, to the court before which the trial is to be. In inspect to the magistrate—it will define what is generally understood to be the law as to the power of admitting to Bail, which now rests upon the construction of an obscure statute passed in the reign of Edward 1st. It will make it obligatory on the magistrate to do that, which it is the general practice to do in case of felony (but a practice not enjoined by law), namely, to take the examinations upon which a prisoner is either committed to prison, or admitted to bail, in the actual presence of the prisoner himself. It will extend this obligation to cases of misdemeanour, as to which there is at present no provision by law, and it will require the return of examinations to the quarter sessions, to which they are not at present by any existing statute bound to be returned. It will extend to subsequent and to future acts the principle of an act of king William, which places the felon, in the same situation as to the consequences of his guilt, whether that guilt be proved by evidence—or confessed by himself—or admitted by his standing wilfully mute—Or by his suffering outlawry. At present, there are several offences, constituted such by acts of the legislature which have passed subsequently to the act of king William, in the case of which, the same consequences do not follow to the offender, should he confess his guilt, or Stand wilfully mute, as would follow in the case of his conviction by verdict upon evidence. This bill will extend to accessaries to felony after the fact, the principle of the existing law, which makes accessaries before the fact triable, either in the county in which the principal felony was committed, or in the county in which the offence of becoming an accessary was committed. The propriety of such an enactment will be best shewn by referring to circumstances which recently occurred, connected with' a very aggravated burglary in the county of Hertford. Lord Cowper's house was broken into by night by a gang of eight persons, who went from London for the purpose, and his steward was robbed of the amount of the rents which he was known to have received from Lord Cowper's tenants the day before. The booty was brought to London, and was divided into shares by a man of the name of Dudfield, who received a considerable portion of it, and who, though not himself present at the robbery was no doubt actively concerned in planning it. He was apprehended and sent to Hertford for trial, but it was impossible to convict him there, because there was no proof that the offence with which the was charged, namely, that of being an accessary after the fact, had been committed in that county in which the principal offence had been committed. He was next arraigned at the Old Bailey, but he escaped there on the same ground. Ultimately he was convicted in Surrey after very great difficulty, and at an expense to the prosecutor of four hundred and twenty-six pounds for bringing that single offender to justice. Should this bill pass into a law, the prisoner indicted under similar circumstances would be liable to be tried in Hertfordshire as well as in Surrey. By this bill a discretionary power will be given to the judges of assize and to the court of quarter sessions to award to the prosecutor in certain cases of misdemeanour the actual expenses incurred by him. On a trial for felony it is well known that the courts have such a power at present, and experience proves that the total want of it on trials for misdemeanour, is a serious obstacle to the due execution of the law. I am fully sensible that this power ought to be strictly defined and controlled. It ought not to extend to cases of assault, on account of the tendency it might have to encourage a litigious spirit and frivolous prosecutions, and it might probably be expedient to limit it to prosecutions for those offences to which the punishment of hard labour can be by law attached. I will give the fullest consideration to every suggestion for preventing the abuse or the injurious effects of this extension of the authority of courts of justice, but I must contend that by withholding the authority altogether, you frequently close the avenues of justice in instances in which the poorest classes are the sufferers, and in which the public interest loudly demands reparation from the offender. What distinction in point of moral guilt, nay, in many cases, what distinction in point of injury to the sufferer, is there between actual rape and the attempt to commit a rape? The law calls the latter offence a misdemeanour, it expects that the party aggrieved, the infant child perhaps of a labouring man, shall over- come all the natural feelings of delicacy and shame, and shall appear in a public court to prove the disgusting details of the injury she has received; it requires the sacrifice of time, the trouble which are inseparable from public prosecution, and after all, inflicts on the injured party the heavy penalty of paying the whole expenses of the suit. There may no doubt be occasionally subscriptions towards such expenses from private and casual sources, but the public purse is closed by law to the prosecutor in such a case as that which I have been detailing. Take again the case of gross abuse of authority, or gross neglect of duty, by some public officer, amounting to misdemeanour, can we expect that private individuals will take upon themselves the invidious duty of lodging the complaint, the painful task of arranging the proofs, and finally the whole costs of prosecution, and all this out of a pure abstract love of justice and tender care for the public interests? It is ridiculous to expect it; to withhold public aid from the prosecutor in such instances as these, amounts to the frequent denial of all reparation to the poor man, and to the impunity of great offenders. My attention was drawn to the last instance which I have mentioned of imperfection in 'the law, by a gentleman whose name will be familiar to all who hear me, the reverend Mr. Sydney Smith, a magistrate of the county of York. He had committed a man on the charge of poisoning cattle; the man's house was searched by a constable, who found there the poison (arsenic), brought it to the house of Mr. Smith, and subsequently to screen the prisoner from punishment denied that any poison had been found. The constable confessed the part he had acted in this transaction, and yet the magistrate had no alternative but either to permit such flagrant misconduct to go unpunished, or to take upon himself the whole burthen of the prosecution. Either alternative appears to me fraught with injustice, for which I hope to devise a remedy. Perhaps in my own opinion a more extensive remedy ought to be applied than that which I am at present prepared to apply. But such a remedy might work a change in our institutions and habits too material to be hastily adopted, without feeling our way by the aid of that pre- vious discussion which familiarizes the public mind to changes, that may be good, abstractedly considered, but that lose half their benefit, if they are too precipitately carried into effect. If we were legislating de novo, without reference to previous customs and formed habits, I for one should not hesitate to-relieve private individuals from the charge of prosecution in the case of criminal offences, justly called by writers upon law—Public Wrongs. I would have a public prosecutor acting in each case on principle, and not on the heated and vindictive feelings of the individual sufferer on which we mainly rely at present for the due execution of justice. Such feelings are rarely the fit measure of the propriety of prosecution. They are apt on the one side to overrate the wrong committed; on the other, still more apt to subside after the first impulse of revenge, and coupled with the just fear of trouble and expense, to lead to disgraceful compromises in which the interests of justice are altogether overlooked. I would therefore make the prosecution of these public wrongs much more a matter of public concern than it is at present, I would (taking at the same time all proper security against the encouragement of undue litigation) indemnify parties more liberally from the pecuniary charge which the trial of a public offender entails, and I would by the appointment of a public prosecutor guard against malicious or frivolous prosecutions on the one hand, and on the other, I would ensure prosecution in cases in which justice might require it. In Scotland crimes are prosecuted in this manner through the agency of a public officer, responsible for, the justice and propriety of the prosecution when under taken at the public charge, and for the conduct of it through its various stages The public prosecutor in Scotland has another power devolved upon him—the exercise of which is frequently of the utmost advantage. In the prosecution of a crime, to which the penalty of death is attached by law, he is enabled in prefer ring the indictment, or indeed any subsequent stage of the trial, to restrict the sentence in case of conviction to a punishment short of death, thus empowering the jury to find a verdict of guilty with it perfect assurance that the death of the prisoner cannot be the consequence of that verdict. Whether such a power can be safely and properly transferred to the institutions of our own country, I am not now prepared to give an opinion. Of this, however, I am confident, that if it should be found possible to borrow from the laws of Scotland suggestions for the improvement of our own law, no Englishman would be found to decry the adoption of such suggestions as monstrous innovations, the offspring of a ridiculous desire for useless uniformity, and the badges of disgrace to the country for whose benefit they were intended. In the detail of the chief provisions of this bill, I have reserved for the last, that alteration in the existing law to which I attach the greatest importance. It appears to me, Sir, that when a prisoner charged with a heinous crime, and proved to be guilty on clear evidence, escapes the penalty of the law upon some technical quibble, or in consequence of some omission of useless forms, a grievous injury is done to society. Not only is justice defeated in the particular case, but the law is discredited, and the numerous lass that speculates keenly on the ad-Vantages to be derived from crime, compared with the risk of its punishment, sees in every instance of undeserved impunity, a fresh encouragement to the adventure. They may, and probably they do grossly miscalculate—but what is that very circumstance, but a great additional evil to society? It is surely a gross mistake to boast as the perfection of any system of law, that it favours the escape of the party accused. That law I apprehend to be most perfect, which most certainly ensures the conviction of the guilty man, and the acquittal of him who has been unjustly accused. But the acquittal of the innocent ought, in justice to innocence, to be upon- the merits of the case. The innocent man derives no benefit from the advantage which may be taken of mere informalities; on the contrary, if that advantage be taken in his case, he forfeits, perhaps, the only chance he has of rescuing his character from stigma, by the proof in open court, that the charge against him is totally unfounded. When I say that the law is most perfect which ensures with the greatest certainty the conviction of the guilty, and the acquittal of the innocent, I ought to add as a qualification, that the law ought to ensure that conviction and acquittal upon principles not capable of being misapplied and perverted. There are, for instance, provisions in the criminal law of France, calculated, no doubt in individual instances, to elicit truth, but which I should never wish to see ingrafted on the practice of this country. I should deprecate anything approaching to the compulsory examination of an accused party; above all, I should be unwilling to see the judge who presides at a criminal trial, actively concerning himself in the conduct of that trial. I should fear that the general tendency of such an interference would be, if not to create in the mind of the judge by insensible degrees, a leaning in favour of the accusation rather than the defence, at least, to lead to inferences on the part of the jury as to the impressions of the judge, which might unduly influence their verdict. I should deprecate the temptation which it might create to the display of superior acuteness in the examination of evidence, every thing in short, which could give to the judge the character of a party to the cause, rather than that of a perfectly unbiassed arbiter. To return, however, to the immediate object to which I wished to call the attention of the House, namely, the expediency of devising some means, which, at the same time that they in no degree endanger the security of the person unjustly accused, shall diminish the chances of escape to the guilty man through mere quibbles or useless technicalities. If any one will review the grounds* upon which great offenders, of whose guilt there could not be a question—whose guilt had been proved in evidence—nay, upon whom a verdict—upon whom even judgment itself had passed—haVe still escaped punishment; he cannot rise from that review without lamenting such melancholy triumphs of legal forms over substantial justice. Ought notorious guilt to be entitled to the same impunity with proved innocence, because, after judgment it is discovered, (to quote the phrases of this bill, which I have had prepared), that in the indictment for a felony there is wanting some proper addition to the name of the defendant, or because there is the want of a profert, or prout patet per recordam—m because there is the omission of vi etarmis et contra pacem? Yet these are the grounds upon which offenders have escaped. Ought the murderer to have all the benefit of acquittal, because the murdered man had three Christian names, and only two of them are set forth in the indictment? or because the wound which caused his death is not described with entire accuracy? Surely we may rely on the dictates of common sense, and be assured that these things are not perfections in the law. But if I am called upon for professional authority, I will cite the beautiful expressions of sir Matthew Hale, and let them stand as the fitting preamble to the enactment I propose. In the history of the Pleas of the Crown, sir Matthew Hale concludes the chapter on the forms of indictment with these memorable remarks: "And thus far, touching the forms of indictment, wherein generally we are to take notice that in favour of life great strictnesses have been in all times required in points of indictments, and the truth is, that it is grown to be a blemish and inconvenience in the law, and the administration thereof; more offenders escape by the over-easy ear given to exceptions in indictments, than by their own innocence, and many times gross murders, burglaries, robberies, and other heinous and crying offences, escape by these unseemly niceties, to the reproach of the law, to the shame of the government, and to the encouragement of villainy, and to the dishonour of God. And it were very fit, that by some law this over-grown curiosity and nicety were reformed, which is now become the disease of the law, and will, I fear, in time grow mortal, without some timely remedy." In the bill which I had prepared for the purpose of applying this timely, or, I should rather say, this tardy remedy, it was originally proposed to enact, that, if upon any trial for felony or misdemeanor, the jury shall be satisfied that any person, time, fact, matter or thing, touching which evidence is given, is really the same person, time, fact, matter, or thing intended by the indictment, it shall be lawful for the jury to find the defendant guilty, notwithstanding any variance in the name or description contained in the indictment. It was thought, however, by some whom I consulted, and in whose judg- ment I place implicit confidence, that this enactment goes too far, and that it might introduce a laxity and uncertainty into indictments more mischievous than the excessive subtilty which it is intended to correct. I shall propose, therefore, to limit the enactment, at least for the present, to a specification of those defects which shall not (as at present they do) vitiate an indictment after verdict, or after confession or default. I have now, Sir, I fear, at very unreasonable length, detailed the objects of the two measures which I propose to introduce. They may not perhaps answer the expectations of some who call out for the immediate and simultaneous revision of the whole of the Criminal Law. To those I answer, in the first place, that they are little aware of the difficulties of far less extensive projects, of the labour and caution, and judgment which are requisite in every step of such an undertaking as that to which the present motions refer. The mere collection of dispersed statutes under one head is an easy process, compared with the more important task of rejecting what is superfluous, clearing up what is obscure, weighing the precise force of each expression, ascertaining the, doubts that have arisen in practice, arid the solution which may have been given to those doubts by decisions of the courts of law. In the second place, I answer, that nothing would be more unwise than to force on the country in too rapid succession, these alterations in the law. Even if we could have an entire confidence, that the substituted law was in itself perfect, without a blemish or omission, still we must recollect, that we are not the instruments for carrying it into effect, and we shall defeat our intentions, and blight the prospects of real improvement, unless we give-leisure to the various authorities on whose assistance we must depend; nay, to the country generally, to comprehend the full scope of the projected changes. Let us not distract and confound society by a multiplicity of new arrangements relating to matters of such importance, and of such constant recurrence in the daily business of life. It cannot, I think, be justly said, that, of late years at least, the march of amendment in the law has been too slow. During the four years that I have held the appointment which I now hold, the following measures have been carried through parliament:— The whole of the statute law relating to prisons, and prison discipline has been, after deliberate inquiries, commenced by my predecessor (lord Sidmouth), consolidated and amended. The severity of the criminal law has been mitigated by extending the benefit of clergy to many offences that, before, were capital felonies; and one great objection to that severity has been altogether removed, by enabling the judges to abstain from passing sentence of death in every case, excepting that of murder. The laws relating to the punishment of transportation have been revised and collected into one statute. The laws relating to the effect of pardons from the Crown, and to the rights of convicts after pardon, and after the fulfilment of their sentence, have been placed upon just principles. The abuses that grew out of the practice that prevailed with regard to writs of error have been corrected. And lastly:—The jury act, comprising the regulations that were previously dispersed in Sixty-six acts of parliament, which now no longer encumber the Statute-book, has been passed, and has, I have every reason to believe, materially improved the constitution of juries. I have entered into this detail of what has been actually done, for the purpose of satisfying the House, that there is no indisposition on my part to proceed in the review and improvement of institutions connected with the administration of the criminal law, though I certainly deprecate that rapid progress, which is inconsistent with mature deliberation, and which leaves behind it, in its thoughtless career, the various instruments, without whose concurrence it is useless to advance. There may, Sir, perhaps, be some who may think it extraordinary, that I, who have not had the advantage of professional practice, or even of a legal education, should undertake the introduction of measures, the details of which must necessarily require so much of professional and technical learning. But let it be recollected, that I am placed in an office which devolves upon me the duty of superintending, in many important respects, the administration of justice, which entitles me to advise the Crown as to the remission or execution of almost every sen- tence of the law, and which gives me daily, I might say, hourly opportunities of witnessing the practical operation of the statutes which I am attempting to simplify and amend. These considerations will probably relieve me from the charge of any unwarranted and presumptuous interference in matters which I do not comprehend. I should be indeed open to that charge, if in presenting these bills to the House, I were offering my own crude speculations, unaided by the learning and experience of professional men. No, Sir; it has been my good fortune to profit by the willing assistance of men who yield to none in respect to general acquirements, to profound knowledge of the principles of law, or to experience in its practice. I owe the preparation of these bills to those gentlemen through whose labour and skill the Jury Act of last session was prepared; to Mr. Hobhouse, the Under Secretary of State in the Home Department (to whom, but for the relation in which, he stands to me, I would do much more ample justice), and to Mr. Gregson, a barrister of high eminence on the Northern Circuit, justly respected by all who know him. The bills, thus prepared, have been submitted to all the judges, and from many of those eminent individuals, from Mr. Justice Bailey, Baron Hullock, Mr. Justice Holroyd, Mr. Justice Burrough, and Mr. Justice Gaselee, I have received very useful suggestions. The assistance which has been afforded by the lord chief justice, I cannot sufficiently acknowledge. He has devoted to the minute examination of these measures all the leisure which he could spare from the immediate pressure of his judicial duties; and has, I fear, encroached upon that repose which was essential to the restoration of his health. In the profession of the law generally, I have found the utmost readiness to cooperate in the work which I have undertaken. It is the fashion to impute to that profession an unwillingness to remove the uncertainty and obscurity of the law, from the sordid desire to benefit by its perplexity. This is a calumny which I know to be unfounded; for I have never made, in the progress of this work, a single application for assistance to any member of the profession of the law, which has not been received in the spirit which becomes a generous mind, rising above the narrow prejudices of habit, and the paltry view to private gain. There is one gentleman among those who have thus shown a willingness to give assistance—to whom I roust make this public return of my acknowledgments, I allude to Mr. Russell, a gentleman who has rendered important service to the law by most valuable publications, and who has offered suggestions with respect to many provisions included in these bills that are entitled to every attention. I now leave to the consideration and decision of the House, the measures into which I have entered at such unreasonable length. They will, I trust, be found, after full investigation, not unworthy of the final sanction of parliament. They propose no encroachments upon civil liberty, no extension of executive authority, no rash subversion of ancient institutions, no relinquishment of what is practically good, for the chance of speculative and uncertain improvement. "The work winch I propound," as lord Bacon says, "tendeth to pruning and grafting the law, and not to plowing up and planting it again; for such a remove I should held indeed for a perilous innovation." Whatever, Sir, may be the ultimate decision of this House, with respect to the measures themselves, it will not, I am confident, condemn the motives which have prompted me to the undertaking. I can have no motive, but the desire to improve the opportunities which have been placed within my reach, and to exert to useful ends, the influence and authority, which constitute, if rightly applied, the real value of high official station.—And, Sir, if there be mixed with that desire any latent feeling of a more personal nature, why should I disavow the legitimate ambition, to leave behind me some record of the trust I have held, which may outlive the fleeting discharge of the mere duties of ordinary routine, and that may, perhaps, confer some distinction on my name, by connecting it with permanent, improvements in the judicial institutions of the country?—The right hon. Secretary concluded, amidst loud cheers, with moving, "That leave be given to, bring in a Bill for Consolidating and Amending the Laws relative to Larceny, and to such offences of stealing and embezzling, and of receiving stolen property, as are cognizable in England."

said, that no act of the right hon. Secretary would hand down his name to posterity with so much ho- nour as his conduct relative to the amendment of the law. He was glad to see that the right hon. gentleman made no job of it; and he hoped that he would follow up his present measures by a consolidation of the general Statute Law. There was one subject to which he wished particularly to call the right hon. Secretary's attention; namely, the exportation of horses. The old law, which forbade the exportation of horses, remained still unrepealed, although a new one was enacted, which allowed the exportation of them, on payment of a certain duty. The consequence of the existence of the old law was, that any man might prevent the exportation of a mare, by making a tender of 6s. 8d. Foreign countries acting on the same principle against us, prevented the exportation of mares to England; so that a gentleman who might have taken a mare to the continent, would not be allowed to bring her back again to England. This state of the law created considerable inconvenience in Yorkshire, and other places, and deserved prompt amendment. He hoped the measures of the right hon. gentleman would have a tendency to check that excessive spirit of making new laws, which loaded the Statute-book with so many useless enactments.

said, he had never heard a proposition which gave him more unfeigned pleasure than the one just submitted to the House. But he wished to mention one important subject, which well deserved the attention of the right hon. gentleman. Throughout the country were to be seen asylums, penitentiaries, &c. for the reception of persons convicted of minor offences. If a man abstained from committing a felony, he might be all his life in the commission of misdemeanors and minor offences of every kind. The only punishment he underwent was, imprisonment in one of those receptacles, from which he came out worse than when he entered, and was allowed to recur to old habits and corrupt new associates. The great mischief was that of allowing the offenders to remain in this country. In his opinion, every person convicted of felony should be transported for life, and the gradation of punishment should be acted on in the place where the party was sent to. Such a mode of punishment would, in the first place, enable the criminal himself to contract moral habits, and would, in the next place, remove him from the opportunity of spreading contamination at home. The House might depend upon it, that by following this system a few years, the number of criminals would be reduced by one-half.

highly approved of the proposed measure, but wished to call the attention of the right hon. gentleman to a species of offence which harrowed up the feelings and destroyed the happiness of so many. He alluded to the crime of child-stealing. At present, a person might steal a child with impunity, the law punishing only for the robbery of the clothes. He trusted that such an outrage upon humanity and reason would be got rid of.

considered the speech of the right hon. Secretary the most luminous statement he had ever heard. As to the expenses of public prosecutions, they ought to be defrayed out of some particular fund. They fell at present on landed property, which was unable to bear further burthens.

was anxious to add his voice to the general expression of approbation bestowed on the clear and able speech of the right hon. Secretary. He thought the expenses of prosecutions for assaults on officers in the discharge of their duty ought to be paid by the government.

expressed his concurrence with the House in their approbation of the measure of the right hon. Secretary. There was, he said, an absurd law, which prevented a prisoner from reading or seeing the indictment on which he was to be tried. That law ought to be repealed. He agreed with the right hon. gentleman, that we ought not to have an unconstitutional or preventive police, such as they had on the continent; but a strong protective police was a useful body. The old magisterial office of constable, when properly exercised, did much good. There still existed a similar officer in Germany, who possessed the power of detaining offenders for a day or night, until they were brought to a regular examination. We ought to have some such officer in England. It appeared that in the metropolis crime had not increased, but that in the country it had nearly doubled. Now, what was the difference to be attributed to, except the residence of an active police in the metropolis? Those straggling places in the country where the population was very great, and where there was no adequate police, were the hotbeds of crime. There was no check to the growth of vice in such places, except the control of parents, and that check was materially weakened by the intervention of the poor-laws.

entirely concurred in the tribute of praise which had been paid to the speech of the right hon. gentleman. He considered the subject to be one of great importance, and sufficient to engage the attention of the greatest mind. In the general proposition laid down by the right hon. Secretary he fully agreed. No one, indeed, could deny that the law ought to be made accessible to all. He wished to express his great satisfaction at having lived to see the day when a minister of the Crown had risen in his place to declare his opinion, that the criminal law of the realm needed revision. Many members must recollect the difficulties which an hon. and learned friend of his had to encounter when he endeavoured to alter the criminal law. He had been told that it was presumption to attempt it. Upon the suggestion of that distinguished person, the House did, indeed, recognize the principle, that promptitude and certainty were essential requisites in the law. He entreated the right hon. gentleman to ask himself whether, the mere announcement of this measure did not proclaim the defects of the law; and he called upon him to prosecute still further his amendments of it. The right hon. gentleman had stated, that 8,000 persons had been convicted of capital crimes within seven years. He felt a desire, when this statement was made, to interrupt the right hon. gentleman with an inquiry as to how many of this number had been executed; for if that statement went forth, and it was believed that all the 8,000 had been executed, there would arise a most unjust and unfounded prejudice against the law of this country. He attributed a great proportion of the increased crime in the agricultural districts, to the operation of the game-laws. He trusted that the right hon. gentleman would keep those laws uppermost in his mind; and that some alteration in them, ere long, would add to the benefits which, by his jury-bill, as well as by the measure now before the House, the right hon. gentleman had conferred upon the country.

also thought that the increase of crime in the country was at- tributable to the game-laws. He would appeal to any country magistrate to say, whether he had not found, in the course Of his experience, that the greater part of the men apprehended for serious crimes, did not attribute their situation to having been concerned in poaching.

said, he trusted that the remedy before them for acknowledged evils would be found efficient. He was glad to hear that the law which so cruelly punished a boy for stealing an apple was to be revised. It was ridiculous to punish so trivial an offence in so severe a manner. He thought there were very few members of that House who had not been guilty of it. With regard to the matter of costs, they ought to be particularly cautious how they trusted magistrates with a discretionary power of that kind over the county rates. He meant particularly magistrates of towns who had large personal property, but which was not subject to the county rate. There were other ways in which the costs might be defrayed. In misdemeanors, for example, the punishment was fine and imprisonment. Now, could it not be so arranged, that magistrates should have the power of giving part, or all of the fine to the prosecutor?

approved of the measure, but objected to the expense likely to be cast upon each county by the prosecutions for assaults and certain other offences. He was aware that this was a serious charge upon individuals, but he nevertheless hoped that the right hon. gentleman would be cautious in adding this burthen to the county rates. He was surprised to hear an hon. member state that there was no specific mode of punishing persons guilty of child-stealing, otherwise than by prosecuting the parties for stealing the clothes. The fact was, that the act of the 34th of George 3rd, c. 101, made the stealing of children a grand larceny.

thought it was a mistake to attribute the increase of crime in the country to the operation of the game-laws. He rather looked for the cause of that increase in the poverty and privation endured by the lower classes. With respect to the payment of costs upon prosecutions for misdemeanor, he agreed in the principle, but thought the expense should be defrayed, not out of the county rate, which touched only one description of property, but out of the general taxation of the country.

suggested that some mode of disposing of juvenile offenders ought to be adopted, as it was found that the alternative of imprisoning them, or letting them run about the streets, was calculated to corrupt and demoralize them.

protested that he did not know how to frame an act of parliament which would prevent children from running about the streets; but any suggestion from the hon. member to that effect he should attend to with great pleasure. The provisions of his measure generally he wished to have thoroughly canvassed, and should feel obliged to any hon. gentleman who would take the trouble to suggest alterations in it. There was one alteration in the law relative to estreating recognizances which he should deem it peculiarly important to make as soon as possible. Nothing was more common than for persons who were bound over to appear as witnesses, upon prosecutions, and not called in court, to be actually arrested, perhaps years afterwards, owing to some error as to their appearance or non-appearance. As an instance of this vexatious practice, the right hon. gentleman stated the contents of a petition which he had just received from a prisoner in Shrewsbury gaol, who had been arrested on the estreating of his recognizances for a prosecution in the year 1818, he having been present in court while the trial went on, but not having been called as a witness. With respect to the payment of costs in cases of misdemeanor at sessions, he believed that they would be far lighter in amount if paid out of the county-rate than out of the general funds of the country. He had observed that all expenses allowed at sessions by magistrates who had an immediate desire to keep the county expenses down, were much lighter than those given by the judges of assize.

rose to move for leave to bring in a bill to regulate vessels navigated by Steam in Scotland. The object of his bill was, he said, to prevent accidents, and to take care that the persons appointed to navigate Steam-vessels should be properly qualified, that the vessels should undergo examination, and be obliged to carry lights, and that in navigating them, they should follow the same rule as those observed by carriages in the streets.

said, he would not directly oppose the bill, but he had great doubts of the utility of it. It was brought on in consequence of some recent accidents, which every one must lament; but he did not approve of the system of legislating upon particular events. The public might be left, he thought, to take care of itself. People would choose their steam-packets as they chose other conveniences that they wanted, and would take those which had the best reputation for safety.

had strong doubts of the propriety of such a bill as this. Unless the learned lord could show that there was a necessity for the measure, it would be better not to interfere. In consequence of some accidents which happened between Liverpool and Dublin some years ago, a bill containing regulations of this sort requiring inspection, &c. was enacted; but the law was altogether neglected. A law of this sort was as applicable to stage coaches as to steam-vessels.

said, that if the bill was brought in, it ought to be general. It was as much wanted in other parts of the kingdom as it was in Scotland.

objected to any bill of this sort proposing intricate regulations, which it would be impossible to carry into effect. It would be better to leave the conduct of the captain free, and not to interfere with him.

said, that the object of the bill was' to establish public rules for the regulation of steam vessels. Had those regulations been in existence a year ago, the accident in October last could not have occurred.

would object to the motion. If the people of Scotland were not to be trusted with the management of their own steam-boats in their own way, it would be much better to introduce a bill to prevent them from using them altogether.

hoped, if any enactment were deemed necessary, that it would be applicable to all parts of the empire. The best regulation that could be suggested was that which prevailed in the royal navy, in which, by given signals, each ship knew on which side of the other it ought to pass. Had that principle obtained, the fatal accident alluded to could not have happened.

hoped that hon. gentlemen would not refuse permission to bring in the bill. A notion had become prevalent, that there was a disposition in the House to rob Scotland; and it would, indeed, be a most serious robbery to deprive her of her inhabitants. A long list of grievances under which Scotland laboured had recently been sent out into the world; and if the House of Commons now refused to give a hearing to this bill in the first instance, the refusal would be set down as an additional item in the long catalogue.

strongly urged the learned lord to withdraw his bill.

trusted that the learned lord would withdraw his bill. The people of Scotland would not thank him for this interference. He might just as well bring in a bill to prohibit them from navigating by steam.

had no immediate objection to the motion, but reserved his right on the introduction and discussion of the bill to suggest any curtailments, or to offer any clauses which he might deem necessary to prevent the infringement upon chartered rights and privileges of corporations.

hoped that the bill would be printed before it was discussed and that it would be sent over to Ireland, and ample time allowed for the statement of objections to it on the part of bodies interested.

said, that he looked on this bill as a great improvement in the laws of Ireland. It would go to cure, the abuses that were obvious to all; such as the registration of freeholds. He knew some counties and towns, in which freeholds were kept unregistered for years.

thought the measure ought not to be confined to Ireland. As a general principle of legislation, it was capable of being applied to many parts of this country with advantage. At the same time it was a question not free from difficulty, and he hoped no steps, would be taken but upon mature consideration and certain information. The greatest difficulty would be to provide a local magistracy sufficiently responsible for these trusts; care at the same time being taken to guard against infringements of local jurisdictions. He dwelt himself in a part of Wales where they suffered from that unavoidable defect. It would be very desirable if a power were given to the Crown to appoint magistrates to act in such cases; provided it were done with a nice regard to chartered and corporation rights.

concurred in the sentiments of the lion, gentleman, and advised that some steps should be taken for reforming local jurisdictions in England as well as in Ireland.

rose, to move for leave to bring in a bill to repeal the act of 21 Geo. 2nd, chap. 10, sec. 8 (Irish statutes), commonly called the Newtown act. In that act there was a clause for regulating the election of members of parliament in Ireland, in which it was provided, that in any borough or town corporate, not being a city, in which a number of resident Protestants, sufficient for the purposes of that act, did not exist, the right of voting should be extended to, and exercised by Protestants non-resident therein. In the year 1780, by a most beneficial statute, one of the clauses of this act was utterly done away with. By a-strange misconception the Test act was still supposed to be in force in Ireland; and he remembered, in the year 1810, that one of the cabinet ministers had told him, that his principal objection to Catholic emancipation was the Test act, although that act bad been done away with in the year 1793, just seventeen years before. In the year 1793, the legislature, acting on a more liberal scale of policy with respect to the interests of Ireland than had been formerly adopted, repealed many of the laws that shackled the energies of the country, and, among others, the law was repealed by which Catholics were prevented from voting, at elections for the return of members to serve in parliament. By this measure the Catholic freeholders of Ireland were allowed to participate in the privileges enjoyed by their Protestant fellow-subjects. Much had certainly been done for Ireland by the repeal of obnoxious statutes; but much remained to do before the Statute-book could be freed from nanny existing laws (the remnants of former oppression and misrule) by which the energies of Ireland were still crippled. All acts subsequent to the reign of Geo. 2nd should be swept from the Statute-book, and not a trace should be left to remind that unhappy country of her former degradation. With respect to the measure which he was about to submit to the House, it was notorious that in a great number of cases the majority of persons in Ireland who voted for members to serve in parliament, were non-residents of those particular places for which members were returned. In the large and populous town of Belfast a considerable portion of those who were entitled to vote were not residing in the town. The same might be said of Dundalk and Newry. Now, the ostensible cause of this was the act of Geo. 2nd, commonly called the Newtown act, which gave the power to non-residents to vote for the return of members to serve in parliament. He would not occupy the House with any further observations at present, but would move, as considerable difficulty at present existed in consequence of the privilege enjoyed by nonresident freeholders in Ireland of voting at elections, for leave to bring in a bill to repeal the act 21 Geo. 2nd, chap. 10, section 8, commonly called the Newtown act. Before he sat down, he begged to disclaim any motive of a personal or interested nature in proposing this motion. He had no ulterior object to accomplish. His only wish was to benefit his country; and should he have the good fortune to succeed in this instance, he should feel that he had accomplished a practical good. He knew that much inconvenience arose in Ireland in consequence of non-residents being allowed to vote; and it was on those grounds that he wished for their exclusion.

said, he was sure that it was quite unnecessary for the right hon. baronet to disclaim interested motives, in bringing forward the present motion. He of all other men would be the last on whom an imputation of the kind would fairly rest. Yet, while he fully acquitted him of interested motives, ho could not concur with him in the views which he had taken on the subject under consideration. He did not conceive that the measure proposed would be attended with the benefits which were anticipated. On the contrary, he foresaw considerable inconvenience in it. The proposition of the right hon. baronet rested on one single ground; namely, that the statute sought to be repealed having passed eighty years ago, was unnecessary now, inasmuch as the reasons which were stated in the preamble had ceased to exist, and the act was no longer applicable. This was the ground on which the right hon. baronet took his stand in proposing the present motion; but might it not occur, that although the causes which led to an enactment might have ceased, the provisions of that enactment being wise and wholesome, should still continue? It was clearly no argument in favour of the abolition of a law, that its application was not immediately felt. The simple question for consideration was, whether non-resident voters who had for eighty 3'ears exercised the right of voting in boroughs and corporate towns, should cease to enjoy that privilege. Now this was a question which involved a great deal; for it did not relate solely to Ireland, but the effects of the proposed measure would also extend to England. And, was the House prepared to adopt such a change in the elective franchise of this country? The House was called upon to take measures for excluding non-residents from voting at elections, both here and in Ireland; but, looking to the circumstances on all sides, and the difficulties by which the measure was surrounded, the statute should not, he thought, be repealed. At the time of the passing of this law, persons of the first respectability resided in those places in which the elective franchise was exercised; but in time, from the change inseparable from the condition of man, it naturally occurred, that persons wishing to reside elsewhere, betook themselves to distant provinces. It was therefore that the act of Geo. 2nd was passed, and its effects were found to answer every object which the legislature had in view. With this impression of its practical results, it would be wrong to repeal this law. But there were still stronger reasons for opposing the motion. The House should look to the consequences that would follow if this law were repealed. The act declared, that all non-resident electors should have a vote. Now, if the majority of persons entitled to vote should happen to be nonresidents, what would be the effect of the right hon. baronet's proposition? It would be this—that there would scarcely be a single person to vote for the return of members to serve in the next parliament. Under these circumstances, could there be a more unwise step than to deprive the present non-residents of the privilege which they had heretofore enjoyed? The question was one of great importance. It was not one that involved but little. It involved a great deal, and it required the gravest deliberation of the House. Under all the circumstances, he was forced to oppose the motion.

supported the motion of his right hon. friend. He thought the right hon. secretary for Ireland had misstated both the fact and the law.

said, he should not discharge his duty by giving a silent vote upon the present occasion; the more especially as he felt himself bound to oppose the motion. He did not believe that his right hon. friend had been guilty of any mis-statement, either in point of fact or of law. The question here was not between the charters, which required residence, and the 21st Geo. 2nd, which dispensed with residence, but it was a question between the act of Henry 7th, and the act of the 21st of Geo. 2nd. The act of Henry 7th required, that all freemen of cities and great towns should be residents; and the charters applied the provisions of that act to all boroughs; but the inconvenience was so great, that the legislature felt it necessary to do away with a restriction which, in their opinion at least, was unconstitutional; for the provision in the charters which, by the measure now proposed, it was intended to confirms was not an extension, but a restriction of the elective franchise. He did not hesitate to say, that many of the charters of James 1st were not, to say the least of them, favourable to the principles of the constitution; for in several of them the principle of restriction was applied to the elected as well as to the elector, and, in more cases than one, such restriction had been held to be unconstitutional. He did not mean now to discuss that principle, but it was sufficient for his purpose, that the legislature, in the time of George 2nd, had thought fit to repeal that restriction, as it applied to boroughs and corporate towns, and that that act had remained in force now nearly seventy years. The measure now proposed was not prospective, but, on the contrary, would have a retrospective operation, and would bear upon individuals who had for years been in possession of the elective franchise. The act of George 2nd declared that no person elected, to, or voting for, a candidate for any office in any borough or town corporate in Ireland, should be impeached for non-residence, and therefore the consequence of repealing that act would be to impeach persons who were not non-resident. It might be said, that persons who had enjoyed the franchise for a certain number of years could not be impeached. That was true; but it was equally true, that persons who had not enjoyed the franchise for that number of years would not be protected. He was not prepared to state what number of persons had been in possession of the elective franchise for six years, and were therefore impeachable; but the House would pause, now that they were approaching to the period of the natural dissolution of that House, before they agreed to the passing of such a measure as that now contemplated, without having first ascertained the number of persons who would fall within its operation. As those persons had been admitted to enjoy this privilege for seventy years, there could be no objection to allowing them to enjoy it for seventy-one years. He thought the right hon. baronet ought, under the present circumstances, to wait for a new session of parliament for the introduction of such a measure. The consequence of this repeal might, for aught the House knew, be the disfranchisement of whole corporations. The motion of the right hon. gentleman went to repeal an act passed forty years previous to the Union of Ireland with this country. Now, at the time of the Union, in 1800, when a selection was made of the boroughs which ought to continue to send members to the united parliament, that selection was calculated upon the principle of the number of electors entitled to vote, compared with the state and condition of the numbers in those towns. He should, therefore, oppose this motion; first, as a measure of general policy, which went to narrow the elective franchise; and, secondly, because he thought it would be an act of injustice to open again an arrangement made at the period of the Union. It had been said, that a similar bill had been brought in upon a former occasion, and thrown out upon the second reading. That circumstance was, in his opinion, an argument against, rather than in favour of the motion; and he should, instead of waiting to vote against the bill, upon the second reading, take the preliminary step of opposing the introduction of it.

ventured to remind the right hon. secretary for Ireland of the his- tory of the act of George 2nd, which waft the most disgraceful that ever took place in the Irish parliament. That act was procured by a person possessed of great influence in the Irish parliament, who was generally known by the name of Jack Promise, who exchanged a borough in the west, for a borough in the north, of Ireland. In the borough of Newtown Limavady, which Jack Promise got in swap for the other borough, he found that he could not conveniently manage the resident Protestant voters, and that it would be better if he could extend the franchise to his own servants and followers; and he therefore procured the sanction of the Irish parliament to the 21st Geo. 2nd; but in order to screen his object from the eyes of the public, he made the words of the act general. The right hon. baronet was entitled to the thanks of the House and the country. He ought not to be told that he did wrong to introduce it, because of its retrospective effects. But might not that difficulty be got over by the insertion of a clause to save existing rights? If the bill were allowed to go into a committee, a clause to that effect might be inserted. "Let us wait," said the attorney-general for Ireland, "until the general election." The act should be repealed now, and the new bill need not come into operation until the election would be over. This course would surely satisfy the right hon. and learned gentleman. As interested motives had been hinted at, he begged distinctly to state, that he was not actuated by such motives. It was sixty or seventy years since the Galway case came before the courts of law. In the erroneous court, or rather the court of error—perhaps one term was as applicable as the other—it was determined, that that act had nothing whatever to do with Galway. He gave the motion his hearty concurrence. The only reasonable argument advanced against it was, that it interfered with existing rights; but that might be guarded against by a proviso of the nature to which he had alluded. This might be called "petty legislation." Some gentlemen seemed partial to that phrase. It had been applied to himself in advocating some of the measures which he had lately had the honour to introduce. But he, for one, did not think it petty legislation to prevent the recurrence of the cutting out of the tongue of a poor dumb beast, and sending it round on a plate, while it was yet quivering and reeking. Gentlemen might laugh and sneer, but he could not consider that a law to prevent such barbarities could fairly be called petty legislation.

said, he would not offer any objection to the introduction of the bill, and to have it printed, in order to give an opportunity to those persons whose interests might be affected by it of seeing what were its provisions. At the same time that he did this out of respect to his right hon. friend, he would not conceal his opinion that the principle upon which the bill proceeded was highly objectionable. He thought that no existing interests ought to be interfered with, without giving to all the parties concerned the fullest opportunity of being heard on the subject.

said, he had heard no arguments which could induce him to withdraw his motion, and as he was convinced of the utility of the measure, he would take the sense of the House on it.

rose to move for leave to bring in a bill to prevent Episcopal Unions in Ireland, and to restrain the granting of Dispensations. The bill, he observed, would secure to the Irish people the residence of their clergy in the parishes to which they were attached, and would restrain archbishops and bishops from making unions of parishes, for the purpose of providing for some of their friends in the church. The extent to which this power was carried would surprise the House; but he would not now enter into any of the details. There was one instance in which a bishop had united six parishes in one county with one situated in another; so that it was certain the clergyman could not be a resident where he might be most required. He would mention only another case, which was stated last year in the House by the hon. member for Louth; that a parish producing an income of 500l. a-year, had been united to another of 288l., and these two to a third of 271l., and these three to a fourth of 720l., and these four to a fifth, the income of which was not specified, but which was said to be equal in amount to all the others. Was it, he would ask, right that such a power should be allowed to be exercised without restraint? Was it right that church property to such an amount should be accu- mulated in the person of one clergyman, while so many excellent and deserving curates were left without that fail-provision to which they were entitled? The bill which he proposed to introduce would also go to prevent clergymen having the cure of souls, and deriving an income of 300l. a-year and upwards from the living, from holding any other living at the same time; and further it would enact, that any person already holding such living, and being presented to another of higher value, should give up the former. These were the outlines of the bill, which lie hoped the House would give him leave to introduce.

said, that he had himself prepared a measure on the subject, but he would not object to the introduction of the right hon. baronet's bill. He was glad to find that in some of the points he had the concurrence of the right hon. baronet. But in assenting to the introduction of this bill, he did not wish to be understood as pledging himself to support that part of the measure which related to pluralities.

rose for the purpose of redeeming the pledge he had given last session, to submit some resolutions on the subject of the formation of Committees on Private Bills. The House were aware that a committee was appointed on this subject in the last session, and had made a report, and some resolutions were founded on that report and printed; but, owing to the late period of the session, those resolutions had not been disposed of. He was glad the delay had taken place, because, upon, a more mature consideration of the subject, he found that one of the resolutions which he then intended to propose would not be so practicable as another course which had been since suggested to him. The House were aware that there were two committees necessary on a private bill. The first was on the petition for leave to bring in the bill, which had to examine whether the usual standing orders had been complied with, and whether all the parties interested had received due notice. In this committee, though its inquiries were only as to certain matters of form, it often happened that there was as much effort made by parties on both sides, as there was afterwards in the committee on the bill itself. The lists of counties from which members were selected to constitute committees on private bills, were, as the House was aware, made out about twenty-five years ago, by the Speaker. Formerly, members were selected from divisions of counties made by the circuits. But now they were made up from members serving for the counties, in which the bridge, road, or canal (he mentioned these by way of illustration), the subject of the bill, was situated, and also of the members for the counties adjoining. Now it happened, that the persons so selected were, from their local situation, likely to be affected in some way or other by the proposed bill, and they were found generally either to be all strongly opposed to, or warmly in favour of, the measure; by which it not unfrequently would happen, that the interests of parties adverse to their views might be overlooked. This was an evil to which he thought a remedy ought to be applied; and to effect this, one object of his resolutions would be, to alter the principle on which lists were made out. He would propose, that a list should be made, consisting half of country members, and half of members serving for remote parts of the united kingdom, as Ireland and Scotland, and in such numbers as would always ensure a sufficient number for a committee. He would have the members of that committee so mixed as to prevent the canvassing which had been carried to a great extent by attornies and other agents for private bills, who would not be likely to know who might be appointed members of such a committee.—But then came the great object, to prevent any undue bias for or against the bill. It suggested itself to him, that this might be obtained by allowing parties interested, who might have objections to particular members being on a committee, on the ground of their being in some way affected by the measure before it, to strike off certain members of those appointed, so as to leave a sufficient number for the purposes of the committee; but, on consideration, he thought that this might cause many delays, unless members were compelled to serve on committees when once appointed. His hon. friend, the member for Yorkshire (Mr. S. Wortley) who had great experience on the subject of private committees, had suggested a less objectionable, and, as it appeared to him, a much more effectual course; which was, that where complaints were made against, the proceedings of a committee on a private bill, the parties complaining, on petition to the House, might have the subject referred to a committee of appeal, which would have the power of finally deciding on the whole matter. The selection of this committee should be made in the same manner as that of the committee of privileges—that was, that it should be made from members of counties, merchants, &c.; from this body a select committee should be chosen like election committees, by ballot; and to this committee the complaint against the committee on the private bill would be referred. To prevent, however, any frivolous complaints, he would propose, that this committee should have the power of awarding costs against the parties who might come before it without sufficient grounds. This he thought would have the effect of rendering the formation of the original committee more pure. He would not at present enter into any further details, as he did not anticipate any discussion on this evening. He would, therefore, move the first resolution, with the view of having the whole printed, and would name Wednesday next for taking them into consideration—The following is a copy of the said resolutions:

did not mean to offer any objection to the resolutions; but, as he understood the hon. member, the committee of appeal would rather have to try the merits of the former committee, than to decide on the question which had been the subject of the private bill. If this were so, he thought it would be attended with inconvenience. He gave his thanks to the hon. member for introducing these resolutions, because there were opinions in the public mind highly prejudicial to the character of committees on private bills.

could not deny, that there had been instances in which these committees had been guilty of injustice; but, generally speaking, they had done their duty ably and impartially.

would not agree to suffer this bill to advance a single stage without offering it his opposition. A bill more absurd or ill-digested had never been introduced into that House. It was impossible it could pass in its present form.

agreed with his hon. friend, that it was impossible the bill should pass without material amendment. If he allowed the second reading to take place without opposition, he should stand committed to the principle of the measure; to which he decidedly objected. The bill was a mere pretence to do something, when nothing was really meant to be done. He would pay the Bank of England any sum of money by way of compensation for the relinquishment of its monopoly, rather than give his consent to a measure so defective and delusive as the present. Nothing was, in point of fact, conceded to the public. As the regulations of the present bill would prevent country banks with an unlimited number of partners from issuing their draughts payable in London, they would necessarily be so cramped in their operations, that they might as well be established in Kamschatka, for any benefit they could render to the mercantile world. They would, in effect, be cut off from all communication with the metropolis.

said, that being favourable to the objects of the bill, he would not oppose the second reading; but it was obvious that it must undergo a total change in the committee, or be entirely inoperative; as, in its present shape, no parties could possibly act under its provisions. In fact, it was a mere copy of the Irish act of the last session, as garbled to meet the petty-fogging jealousies of the Bank of Ireland. It could not be conceived that such clauses could have originated with a great corporation like the Bank of England. These must necessarily be amended. To the principle of the measure, he repeated, he was entirely friendly.