rose. He said, he was desirous, now that the attention of the House and the public was no longer directed to a subject which had so long excited the warmest feeling and the most anxious solicitude of all classes of his majesty's subjects, both Catholic and Protestant, of leading the House to the consideration of a topic of considerable interest as respected the preservation of the rights of property as well as the protection of the persons of his majesty's sub- jects. He was about to draw their attention to the state of the criminal jurisprudence of this country, and that of the existing police established for the prevention of crime as well as its detection. It would be in the recollection of the House, that committees of the House had been appointed to investigate this subject, as early as the year 1770, and again in 1793. Committees also were appointed in 1812, 1818, 1822, and lastly, in 1828. These different committees had been the result of alarm at some remarkable or unprecedented outrage at the time; or the effect, perhaps, of a general conviction, that crimes and offences against the peace of society were so much on the increase, as to require an increased and corresponding vigor on the part of our police, with a view to protect the public, and prescribe more effectual remedies for its preservation. But, unfortunately, those committees, however their reports might be creditable to the labors and investigation of the individuals who composed them, produced no effect in improving the law materially; and the subject was lost sight of, almost as soon as the cause of the recent alarm had subsided. No effectual measure, therefore, was recommended by the committees, or adopted, at the suggestion of individuals in parliament.

Whoever had read the reports of those committees, particularly those of later date, would find the state of our police be most defective. It had been pretty clearly ascertained, that it was altogether unsafe, and that it had been so for a long period, to commit the care of the lives and properties of the people of the metropolis and its vicinity to the charge of the parochial watch, during that part of the twenty-four hours which constituted the object of their very lax and inefficient protection. He might rest his case on the report of the police committee which lay on the table, and which clearly showed the necessity of some alteration in the existing means for the prevention and detection of crime; but he thought it would be more satisfactory to the House and the public, to state generally the grounds upon which he felt himself imperatively called upon to induce the House to abandon the present system of protecting property and guarding the safety of the person. If they the state of crime in the metropolis with that in other parts of the country, or in England and Wales at large, the result would be very unfavourable to the former. If, for example, they selected the last year, and calculated the proportion which the number of criminals in London and Middlesex bore to the population, they would find that not less than one person in every three hundred and eighty-three had been committed for some crime or other in 1828. If, in the same manner, they determined the ratio between the number of persons similarly committed within the same period in England and Wales, the proportion would be found to be one criminal to every eight hundred and twenty-two of the entire population. The result of a comparison of both, as he had stated, would be very unfavourable to the metropolis. It might be said, perhaps, that a different ratio of increase of population in London and Middlesex and the country at large, would account for this difference in the amount of crime; but an examination would show, that the great increase of crime in the former could not be explained by the increased number of its inhabitants. Neither, he was sorry also to say, would the result be favourable to the metropolis, if they compared its present amount of crime with that of any other period, or compared either with that of other parts of the country. In 1821, the number of persons committed in London and Middlesex amounted to 2,480, the population being 1,167,000. In 1828, he regretted to say, the committals for crime amounted to 3,560. There was no official return of the amount of increase of population in 1828; but, assuming it was in a corresponding ratio to that of other periods, the number of inhabitants in London and Middlesex would be 1,349,000 in that year. The result, therefore, of a comparison between the rate of increase of population and the rate of increase of crime in the metropolis, showed that the former was not in proportion to, and could not account for, the great increase of the latter; for there was an increase of forty-one per cent in the number of committals in 1828 over that of 1821; while there was an increase of population of only fifteen and half per cent. Increase of population, then, did not explain the great increase of crime in London and Middlesex. Neither did the rate of increase of the number of commitments in England and Wales correspond with that of the inhabitants; for a comparison of both in the years 1821 and 1828 showed, that crime had increased twenty-six pet cent, while population had increased but eleven and a half per cent.

Although it did not belong properly to his present subject, he thought that, as he had alluded to the state of crime in the country at large, he might, with satisfaction to the House, state, that though the number of committals had increased to so great a degree of late years in London and Middlesex, crime had very sensibly diminished in many parts of the country. The increase of committals in forty-four counties of England and Wales, in 1827, as compared with the preceding year, amounted altogether to 1,914; the decrease in six counties, including the city of Bristol, amounted to 167: leaving a nett increase of 1,657 committals for crime in the year 1827. But if they proceeded further, and compared the year 1828 with 1827, they would find a decrease of committals in thirty-five counties, of 1,656; and an increase in fourteen counties, including Bristol, of 299; leaving a nett decrease of committals for crime, during the last year, in England and Wales, of 1,357. This statement, he thought, was some consolation for the unfavourable comparison which the metropolis afforded—the rather, as the diminution of committals generally throughout the country, during the last year, was not at all owing to any laxity of duty on the part of the country police, but to an actual diminution of the amount of crime. This diminution would appear more striking on a comparison of the total number of committals in the last and preceding year. In the year 1827, the total number of persons committed for crime in England and Wales was 17,921; in the year 1828, the number of committals amounted to but 16,566. In some counties the decrease was very remarkable. In Lancashire, for instance, there were but 448 commitments last year, while there were not less than 2,457 in 1827. In Somersetshire, the number of committals was one hundred and fifty-one less last year than in the preceding. The decrease in Yorkshire was 129; and so on in other places, until they came to what he was sorry to call the unfavourable exception of London and Middlesex; in which there was an increase of 135 committals in 1828, over those of 1827. It was not, he regretted to say, only in one year that London and Middlesex afforded a proof of the increase of crime, much greater than any possible increase of population could account for. If, they took any series of years, say seven, on which the police committee had reported, they would find that crime had not only increased in the metropolis more than in the other parts of the country, but had far out-stepped the rate of increase of its inhabitants. If they, for example, compared the increase of crime in the seven years beginning with 1811, with the seven years ending with 1828, and then compared both with the increase of population, they would find that crime had increased fifty-five per cent, while the population had increased but nineteen per cent, leaving an excess of crime over population of thirty-six per cent, to be accounted for by other means or causes.

It was no easy matter to determine what those other means or causes were, which had occasioned this frightful difference between the increase of crime and the increase of population, of not less than thirty-six per cent in a series of years. Many intelligent gentlemen, who took an interest in the subject, had endeavoured to investigate and determine those causes; but he must still say—and he spoke in the presence of many hon. members who had taken an active part in the police committee—without having arrived at any satisfactory conclusion as to the real nature of those causes. He feared that one of those causes was the increased mechanical ingenuity of the age; by which the perpetration of crime was aided, and the means of detection lessened. What he meant was, that the mechanical improvements which so much distinguished the country, and which were a great source of its prosperity, so aided the perpetrators of crime, by enabling them to travel a great distance in a few hours, and to use great caution in the selection of time and manner, that the means of detection were very much lessened. All causes, therefore, of the increased comforts of the people of the country became thus sources of crime; not less from the increased temptation which they necessarily created, than from the increased facilities which they afforded of perpetration and evasion.

Another influential cause was, the very unsatisfactory state of that branch of our police which was chiefly controlled by the parochial authorities. He was satisfied, that so long as the present night-watch system was persisted in, there would be no efficient police prevention of crime, nor any satisfactory protection for property or the person. This was the conclusion which the police committee had come to, and which the evidence of persons most interested in the subject made manifest. In fact, it was the conclusion which every one who inquired into our present watch-house system must arrive at. The chief requisites of an efficient police were unity of design and responsibility of its agents—both of which were not only not ensured by the present parochial watch-house system, but were actually prevented by it. The House was aware, that each parish had its own watch-house establishment, its own watchmen, its own discipline, and its own responsibility; that it was left to the parochial authorities alone, to devise and enforce and control, the means of protecting the property and persons of its inhabitants. By this arrangement each parish was perfectly isolated, so far as prevention of crime was concerned, from every other; there could be, therefore, no general unity of design—no general responsibility. But, this was not all: each parish had its own districts, every one of which might be perfectly independent of the rest as to its police; so that the responsibility was still further subdivided, or rather destroyed. Could there, then, be any unity of design under such a system? Certainly not; nor responsibility, until all the parochial police was concentrated under one responsible and efficient head.

He did not, when he made this declaration, mean to deny that some of the parishes in the metropolis had applied themselves meritoriously and successfully to protect the property and persons of their inhabitants, by establishing an efficient parochial police; but he contended, that until this efficiency was made general, nothing but a local benefit could follow from their efforts. What advantage in a general point of view could be derived from one well-regulated district, surrounded by five or six neighbouring parishes in which no attempts had been made to remedy the present inefficient watch-house system? Would not the necessary effect be, to drive the thieves and robbers from the protected parish into those parishes on its skirts on which the authorities were indifferent about providing efficient security for the property, &c., contained in it? Would not, consequently, the one well-regulated district aggravate the evils of its neighbours? This was actually the case with the parishes of Hackney, St. James's, and Marylebone, in which owing to the voluntary and unpaid exertions of some of the inhabitants, an efficient watch-police establishment was kept up. But though these exertions were eminently successful at present, he need not say, that, being dependent wholly on the disposition of individuals, who had, as he had stated, voluntarily, and without remuneration, undertaken them, there could be no adequate security for their continuance, far less for their extension, but in the appointment of responsible official agents. Besides, he repeated, supposing their continuance could be ensured under the present system, they must prove abortive against the effects of a bad neighbourhood until unity of design was established.

The necessity for that unity was strikingly shown by the present police arrangements of some of the parishes adjoining the Well-regulated ones he had mentioned. In the parish of St. Pancras, for example, in which there was a large watch-house establishment kept up, according to returns which he had thought it right to call for, there was not less than eighteen different watch-trusts—that is eighteen different, isolated irresponsible police establishments rendering a unity of design among the eighteen local authorities of that large parish an actual impossibility. In that parish, then, there were eighteen Watch-trusts; but if they inquired into the arrangements of other parishes, they would find, not too many watch-trusts, but actually no night-watch at all. This was the case in the parish of Lambeth, in which there was no provision for a night-watch, and in which there was a different species of police altogether, but no watch-trust. Upon this point there was much interesting, and—if he could say so in a case involving so serious a subject as increase of crime—much amusing information in the evidence annexed to the report of the police committee. To that evidence he begged leave to direct the attention of the House, particularly of such hon. members as might be disposed to view his intended bill with a jealous eye.

For the satisfaction of those hon. members, he thought it necessary to state that he had higher opinions in favour of his present object, than parochial authorities. Those most competent to judge, and most interested in the subject in the city and elsewhere, had expressed their decided and unanimous opinion, that some material improvements were imperatively necessary in our present arrangements for the protection of property. Those also who were practically acquainted with the workings and defects of the present parochial police system, had expressed the same opinion, either directly or by implication, in their evidence before the police Committee. Mr. Julian, the clerk to the magistrates of the Kensington district, had furnished on this point very important information. If appeared from the evidence, that that district was dreadfully exposed to the depredations of thieves and house breakers.

That it should be so, he thought Mr. Julian's evidence of the number and character of the—he supposed he must call it—parochial police, showed Was not very surprising. That witness stated that the wealthy and populous district of Kensington—not less than fifteen miles in extent—was dependent on the protection of three constables and three head-boroughs, some of whom, after they were a time in office, became not very remarkable for their abstinence from intoxicating liquors, and who, from the nature of their appointment by the steward of the manor, were, to all intents and purposes, beyond the control of the magistrates, and who, from having no fees but those the law allowed them, in the end did no duty at all, except indeed that of making out very long bills. Surely it was not surprising, when the great extent of the Kensington district, and its great wealth were considered, that three drunken beadles should be no preventive of housebreaking and thievery in it. Indeed, as had been said of the Court of Chancery, three angels, under such circumstances, would be a sorry protection [a laugh]. He repeated—it could not be considered surprising that burglaries were frequent in the Kensington district, with such a police. What said another clerk of the magistrates in his evidence? Why, that in the parish of Tottenham alone, in six weeks, not less than nineteen attempts at burglary had been perpetrated, and out of these nineteen attempts but three failed, the remaining sixteen being entirely successful. And this was but one parish out of eight in the district.

It was, he felt, unnecessary for him to say with such facts staring them in the face, that it was the bounden duty of the legislature to interfere, not only to prevent such a daring outrage against the laws, but to provide more secure means of protecting the person and the property of the subject. Again, if they examined the evidence respecting Spitalfields, they would see additional, and, if possible, stronger proof of the necessity of some legislative measure. It was true, that the present state of that district presented a very favourable contrast to its recent one, when gangs of thieves stood at the corners of the streets, robbing, in the middle of the day, all persons who came within their reach, in open defiance and contempt of the laws; but the evidence was still highly important. It showed the imperfect security afforded by the present system of parochial police, and the striking advantages of the exertions that had been made, chiefly through the praiseworthy zeal of one inhabitant, Mr. Gregory, to improve the local police. The individual to whom he had alluded stated in his evidence that he was then the superintendent of the watch in his district—that the number of watchmen was, as before, twenty-one; but that they were now much more efficient, being better looked after than in the time of the late treasurer, a very old gentleman, who was wholly blind, and never gave himself any trouble about their conduct or appointment.

It was much to be wished, that the conduct pursued in this parish should be imitated by others. But it unfortunately was not. He had returns from parishes in the vicinity of the metropolis, showing that in those parishes there was no species of nightly watch at all; and that the only protection the inhabitants had for their lives and property was their own individual vigilance, and the honesty of the thieves in their neighbourhood. This was the case in the parish of Fulham, containing fifteen thousand inhabitants; and in Chiswick, Ealing, Old Brentford, Acton, St. Mary Stratford Bow, Edgeware, Barnet, Putney, Wands-worth, and two other parishes. In those populous and wealthy parishes there was no parochial police—no protection for life or property—but the voluntary exertions of individuals, at whose expense others who had not contributed anything were benefitted. There was no parish not actually, forming a part of the metropolis, but in its near vicinity, which furnished stronger evidence of the necessity of an efficient police, and of the consequences to neighbouring parishes of one containing no parochial police, than Deptford. This parish contained upwards of twenty thousand inhabitants, was situated as a ready asylum to those banished from Westminster and the adjoining district for their offences, and positively did not contain a single watchman or night-police authority to prevent crimes and apprehend offenders. It was not surprising, such being the fact, that that parish was the scene of frequent depredations, as in a recent instance of a most atrocious and sanguinary outrage. Within the last few years the indignation at those outrages had led to the formation of a voluntary night-patrol by the parishioners; but as the apprehension for the security of life and property had abated, this temporary protection disappeared with the excitement which gave it birth. The right hon. gentleman proceeded to read a letter from the parochial authority of St. Nicholas, Deptford, in which the writer stated, that though no place required a parochial police more than the parishes of St. Nicholas, and St. Paul, Deptford, there was no public watch, no watching or lighting tax, and no protection during night for life and property, but that afforded by two persons, to whom some of the inhabitants paid a sum totally inadequate to support existence and ensure vigilance.

Such a state of things must continue so long as that, or any other parish, was dependent on the voluntary exertions of individuals for the means of protection, and was not called upon, by act of parliament, to maintain an efficient police. This compulsion, in cases where it was necessary, was his present object. This measure contained a variety of details, which he would not then state to the House; indeed, they were of a nature much more fitted for the notice of a Select Committee. He therefore proposed, in carrying into effect the recommendations of the committee of last year, to have that committee reappointed. He would then merely state, that he proposed, as had been suggested by the committee, to unite under one head all parochial police authorities, including, of course, nightly watchmen. These would be under the control of a Board of Police, whose duty it would be, to superintend, and be responsible for, all the agents required by the police. He would abandon the term "watchman"—indeed it was one that was not in great repute—and consider and speak of their substitutes as a species of night patrol. The bill would appoint three Magistrates to the direction of this board. He proposed, that all watch taxes should in future be abolished, and a general police-tax be substituted in their stead. Of course, all parochial distinctions would be done away with. The advantages of this would appear sufficiently evident, to those who considered the defects of the present system. It was not unusual now for one side of a street to be in one parish, and the other side in another parish; and, as a Consequence—the power of watchmen and constables being confined to their own parish—a watchman standing on one side of the street could not interfere with, and would be a passive spectator of, a depredation performing on the other, so that that depredation was actually short of felony. He had no power of stirring, on grounds of suspicion even of felony, out of his own parish, and could not prevent the actual perpetration of minor crimes, Unless in his own district.

One effect of the measure he intended to propose would be, to do away with this and other mischievous consequences of the present parochial distinctions. He did not intend to proceed at first on too extensive a scale, but would endeavour in this, as on other occasions, to effect a gradual reformation, with that cautious feeling of his way, and deriving aid from experience, essential to the ultimate success of all reforms. He would not abolish at once all the parochial police establishments, but would apply his proposed bill to a few districts in the vicinity of the metropolis at first, and then gradually extend it to the others, as its advantages unfolded themselves. In those districts in which necessity for a change in the present system was most apparent, he would commence with intending that local taxation should defray the expense of the local application of the measure. Supposing, for example, he should begin with ten parishes, those he would make liable to a local police-tax—the local watch-tax ceasing when the measure should be applied. In time the board would be empowered to unite other parishes in the neighbourhood to their Jurisdiction; and thus gradually they would make the measure general. With respect to the tax which he proposed to levy, he Was confident that it would be much less than the present watch-rates; while, as he need not say, it would ensure a far more efficient police.

The subject had many details, which, though of local importance, would, he conceived, be annoying to the majority of the House, and would be discussed with more advantage in a Select Committee. He therefore would propose the reappointment of the Police Committee of last year. To it he would refer the bill he was about to move for; which was ready drawn up, and had been prepared with great care and ability by gentlemen recommended to him by their talents and fitness for the task. Still, however, as it was a new measure, he would refer it to the reappointed committee, there to receive the necessary minute investigation.

He could not help saying a word or two as to the good effects of a police-patrol like to that which he was about to establish. In 1805, when high way-robberies were so frequent in a particular district adjoining the metropolis, that the watch and police of the district were found to be not sufficient for its protection, there was established the horse-patrol, which was found so efficient in preventing crime and apprehending offenders. It could not be any peculiar change of circumstances since that time that could account for the cessation of robberies in that district; the cause could alone be found in the efficiency of the horse-patrol. The present horse-patrol consisted of fifty-four men. The selection of the patrol was made, in the first instance, with reference to the age of the man, in order that there might be a certainty of having officers capable of enduring the fatigue and discharging the duties which the situation imposed upon them. The selection was also conducted with reference to the previous character of the men. Above all, their promotion was made to depend upon their good conduct; and they were always under the surveillance and control of one establishment. It was upon such principles that he would propose to establish the patrol contemplated by this bill.

Now, with respect to the watchmen. In some instances, it had appeared, that the watchmen, in some places, only received for their regular pay 2d. an hour: in other instances, it had been found that persons who were burthens upon the poor-rates were chosen to fill the situation of watchmen; and, as he had said before, in many parishes, in the neighbourhood of the metropolis, the inhabitants were obliged to come forward themselves, and, by their own voluntary contributions support a night-watch, for the protection of their families.—He imagined that no objection would be taken to this measure on the score that it went to confer an unconstitutional power upon the board which he proposed to establish. The fact was, the magistrates constituting this board would not possess more than the powers which usually belonged to the office of police magistrate; and even if their power, in some degree, went beyond that extent, the House, he was confident, would perceive that it would be better to have under such a system, a thousand efficient than to have two thousand less efficient constables, under a laxer system. He was therefore satisfied that no objection would be taken to the measure, in so far as it went to invest the board of magistrates to be constituted by this bill with efficient means of exercising the powers which belonged to them.

In one respect, perhaps, objections would be taken to this measure, on the ground of its exciting jealousy on the part of the existing parochial authorities, in consequence of its transferring the patronage which at present vested in their hands, to this department, acting under the control of the Secretary of State. For his part, he could not conceive what valid objection could be urged against the power which would be derived from this patronage to government, more than to that which resulted from the selection of persons for the army and navy. Certain he was, that from the class of persons who would be chosen under such a system, for any jealousy which might be entertained by parochial authorities in reference to the loss of this petty patronage, there would be found an ample compensation in the increased protection which would be afforded against offenders, and in the increased security given to the inhabitants for the preservation of the peace and tranquillity of their respective neighbourhoods. But the subject must be considered and determined upon higher and more extended principles, than in reference to these petty parochial jealousies. When they looked at the relative proportion which the criminals bore to the population in this metropolis—when they saw that one out of every three hundred and fifty-three of that population was committed to prison, charged with some criminal offence, it was their duty, under such circumstances, to legislate upon principles of a higher and more extended nature, and to adopt effectual means to put a stop to such a frightful increase of crime.

But, it might be said, that this measure would go to impose additional burdens upon the inhabitants of the various parishes. It was true, that a certain degree of expense would be required to carry it fully into effect; but he was sure that any additional burden imposed in that way would be fully compensated for, by the additional protection and security which it would afford. Besides, one certain effect of the measure would be to diminish the number of prosecutions in Middlesex and London; and thus, while the inhabitants would be relieved from the watch-tax, they would also be relieved from other parochial rates, which had been materially increased by the expense and number of those prosecutions.—But, he would rest the defence of this measure upon a much higher consideration—upon its effects in checking the increase of crime. He saw no mode by which they could hope ultimately to mitigate the severity of their criminal code, but the adoption of some such measure as this for preventing the increase of crime. It would be vain for them to attempt to mitigate the penalties which attached to crime already, unless they took measures to prevent the commission of crime itself. If, as it appeared from the documents upon the table, the number of criminals in the year 1821 amounted to two thousand five hundred—if they had increased in 1828 to three thousand five, hundred,—and if they were going on at such a rapidly increasing ratio, it would be obviously impossible, unless some check were put to their increase, to effect any material mitigation in the penalties which, under the existing laws, attached to the commissions of crime.

He was not one who considered that this increase of criminals had been mainly occasioned by the increase of distress amongst the population. He believed that these criminals were, in almost all instances, trained and hardened profligates,—that they had been incited to the commission of crime, by the temptations which the present lax system of police held out to them; and he was sure it was possible effectually to check them, by the vigorous exercise of the powers supplied by the common law of the land.—He had already referred the House to an instance, in which nineteen acts of burglary had been committed in the parish of Tottenham, within an exceedingly short space of time; and he might now state, that these burglarious attempts had been committed by notorious thieves, who made burglary a profession. When, therefore, they talked so much of the liberty of the subject possessed by the people of this country, he was afraid that they gave credit to some parts of the population for the enjoyment of much more liberty than they actually possessed. He believed that a large portion of the inhabitants resident in the neighbourhood of Twickenham and Brentford were under constant apprehensions that their lives and properties would be attacked; and such fears were entirely inconsistent with the free enjoyment of liberty and peace. It was the duty of the legislature to afford them protection against the causes which gave rise to such apprehensions,—it was the duty of parliament to afford to the inhabitants of the metropolis and its vicinity, the full and complete protection of the law, and to take prompt and decisive measures to check the increase of crime, which was now proceeding at a frightfully rapid pace; and it was upon such grounds, with such objects, and for the purpose of providing a more efficient police for the metropolis, that he now begged to move for "leave to bring in a bill for the Improvement of the Police of the Metropolis."

said, he wished to direct the attention of the right hon. gentleman to one point to which he had not alluded, in his very convincing statement,—he meant the system of patrol, to whom was intrusted the care of the streets of the metropolis during the day. Owing to the defective state of the streets of the metropolis, and the dangers to which the public were exposed in the more crowded thoroughfares, a new system of patrol had been established, for the purpose of driving away pickpockets, and for protecting the public against their depredations. These patrols were not known by any staff or other ensign of authority; and they were only recognized by the wearing of a blue coat and a red waistcoat. They were suffi- ciently active in frightening away unfortunate apple or orange-women; but he did not believe that they were equally active in banishing pickpockets, and protecting the public against the depredations of the thieves and robbers who abounded in the crowded streets of the metropolis. Besides, this species of patrol or street-keepers had only been established in a few of the leading streets: in many of the great thoroughfares a really efficient patrol of that kind was still much wanted. He trusted that the inconvenience experienced by the public in that particular would be removed by the measure which the right hon. gentleman was about to introduce. He had thought it right to call his attention to this point, as he had confined his observations to the state of the night watch; and he trusted, that as the right hon. gentleman proposed to establish a more efficient night patrol, he would also see the necessity of establishing a regular patrol for perambulating the streets of the metropolis during the day. The House was, of course, aware of the correspondence which had taken place between the Home-office and the city authorities, with reference to the regulation of the police. He was not aware whether any thing had since been done on that subject, but to him it appeared quite manifest, that in order to produce the good effects of any plan for the improvement of the police of the metropolis, there must be a perfect harmony between all the authorities on the subject; otherwise the thieves would have only to emigrate eastward or westward of Temple-bar, according as they were driven from the one place or the other, by the exertions of a more efficient and better-regulated police. He hoped the right hon. gentleman would direct his attention to these points; and he was sure he would see the necessity for the establishment, not only of a night, but of a day police throughout the streets of the metropolis.

said, that the hon. member was mistaken in supposing that the board which he proposed to establish would only embrace the regulation and management of the night patrol. That department would be responsible for the State of the metropolis both by night and day. Much benefit had resulted from the day patrol, even as it was at present constituted. To what did the day patrol at present amount? Only three inspectors and twenty-four men. When benefit resulted from such a small patrol, it was fair to suppose that great good would be effected by the establishment of a vigilant and numerous patrol, under the superintendence of the new board of magistrates, and capable of giving efficient protection to the passengers, against the depredations of pickpockets in the leading streets and thoroughfares of the metropolis. The hon. member had spoken of the defects which existed in the present system of the day patrol; but the hon. member would, no doubt, concur with him in thinking, that if that patrol so constituted had been productive of any benefit, it only demonstrated the advantage of having an efficient, vigilant, and well-regulated patrol, both by night and day, controlled by one authority, and acting under one head. Unless it were established on such a plan, it would he quite impossible to effect the objects in view; for when the thieves should be driven from one part of the town, they would have only to transfer themselves to another. It was therefore absolutely necessary that there should be but one head presiding over and directing the operations of this new police. With a police established upon such a system, he was confident they would be able to dispense with the necessity of a military force in London, for the preservation of the tranquillity of the metropolis.

said, there was only one point in the observations which had fallen from the right hon. gentleman which he conceived objectionable. He alluded to that part of his statement, in which he spoke of letting the parishes come into this new system, as they might think proper ["No, no," from Mr. Peel]. He wished to know from the right hon. gentleman, whether the parishes would be left at liberty to adopt this system as they pleased.

said, that under the act which he intended to introduce, a certain day would be appointed when the parochial establishments in each parish would be abolished, and the whole management of the police of that parish transferred to the board appointed under this act. It was desirable, however that so great a change should not be made too suddenly. He did not propose that all at once the parochial police establishment should cease, and that this new police department should at once be obliged to take charge of the whole police of the metropolis. He would first propose to intrust to them the charge of the police in a certain number of parishes; and he would extend their authority gradually to other parishes, until the charge of the entire establishment devolved upon them. By that means, the new police department would become gradually exercised in the management and control of the police, and in the course of time they would be competent to take charge of the entire police of the metropolis. In every instance a day would be fixed when the charge of the police in a particular parish would devolve on this department: the existing parochial authorities would then entirely cease; the rates paid for the maintenances of watchmen would also cease, and instead of the watch-rate a new police-rate would be imposed. He was not, however, for giving to this new department a too widely extended authority all at once. To give to them suddenly the charge and management of fifteen hundred men would be too much. He would have them, in the first instance, to take charge of the police in the city of Westminster; then he would propose to extend their jurisdiction gradually to Kensington, Hammersmith, and other places in the neighborhood; and in that manner he would gradually extend it over the various districts where its authority was intended to reach.

said, he had supposed that it was to be left to the parishes themselves to come under the jurisdiction of the board; but the right hon. gentleman had satisfactorily explained that part of his statement. He was sure that the plan, if carried into effect, would be productive of the best consequences.

Leave was given to bring in the bill; which was accordingly brought in, and read a first time.

said, he wished to address a few words on this occasion to the right hon. the chancellor of the Exchequer. He thought it his duty to direct the attention of the right hon. gentleman to the claims of a class of persons whom he conceived were entitled to the consideration of his majesty's government—he alluded to the Spanish bondholders, whose property had been confiscated by the most outrageous violation of good faith that had ever been displayed by any government. These bondholders lent their money on the good faith of the Spanish government; the signature of the king of Spain was affixed to the bonds, and the ministers of the different courts of Europe, then at the Spanish court, have given their sanction to the agreement. The greatest portion of the money which was thus lent to the king of Spain was appropriated to his own service, and to defray the expenses of the court. But, no sooner did the French forces enter the country, and no sooner had the king of Spain entered the French camp, than he caused to be cancelled all the obligations in which he had bound himself to these bondholders, and thus perpetrated one of the most glaring acts of bad faith that had ever been committed. Certainly, these bondholders had not given a power to the government to act for them under the convention which determined the claims to which this bill applied: still, their claims were good; and though the British ambassador had it not in his power to protest against the confiscation of their property, at the time it was so shamefully and openly made, he conceived that his majesty's government might interpose their good offices with the French government, in order to induce that government to compel the king of Spain to discharge their just claims. The French had declared, on entering Spain, that they did not go there to injure the property of individuals; but that their sole purpose was to re-establish the government of Spain, and to place the king upon the throne. It was therefore probable, that France might be induced to interfere in this matter, so as to make the court of Spain restore their property to these unfortunate bondholders.

said, he did not wish to express an opinion which could be considered in any way unfavourable to the claims of the individuals on whose behalf the hon. gentleman had spoken, but the hon. gentleman must see, that those claims were totally different from these particular claims to which the present bill applied. The claimants, in the present instance, were persons whose property had been seized by vessels employed by government. Now, the individuals of whom the hon. gentleman had spoken, stood in the situation of persons who, placing a reliance upon the faith of a foreign government, entered into pecuniary engagements with that government; and, under such circumstances, they must be prepared to bear upon their own shoulders the misfortune, if it should so happen that that government did not adhere to its engagements. He conceived it would be an unsafe principle to admit, that the government of this country should interfere in such a case. He distinctly refrained from expressing an opinion adverse to their claims, but he doubted much the propriety of this government interfering on their behalf.

would merely recal to the recollection of the right hon. gentleman the case of the South American bondholders. The Secretary for Foreign Affairs had exercised his influence on their behalf, so as to induce the governments in South America to make an adjustment of their claims; as they ought to do to support their own credit, and as they were bound to do by virtue of the engagements into which they had entered. Now, here was a gross instance of a violation of good faith on the part of the king of Spain; and he conceived that the government this country might very properly afford aid to these unfortunate bondholders, with a view to procure them redress.

The report was agreed to.