rose, to move for leave to bring in a Bill to alter and amend so much of the 7th and 8th of George 4th, c. 28, as related to proceedings in indictments against offenders previously convicted of felony; also to alter and amend so much of the 7th and 8th of George 4th, c. 29, as related to proceedings by indictment against persons under seventeen years of age charged with simple larcenies. By the 7th and 8th of George 4th, it was enacted, that when a prisoner was indicted a second time for felony, upon proof of the former conviction, the Court might order an increase of punishment—namely, transportation for fourteen years, or for life. When the clerk of arraigns read the indictment to the Jury, in which there were two counts, the one stating the former conviction, and the other the charge to be tried, the Jury acquired a previous knowledge of the accused being an old offender; and such knowledge prejudicing him in their minds, he might be convicted, not so much for the offence for which he was then taking his trial, as for the offence for which he had already suffered punishment. Now, it was a principle of law, that no man should be tried a second time for the same offence; and the jury being sworn "to give a true verdict, according to the evidence," it followed, that the previous knowledge of the Jury was injurious to the prisoner, and militated against his having a fair trial for the offence on which he was then arraigned. He proposed that the count, stating the previous conviction of the prisoner, should not be read to the Jury till after their verdict; when, if it were a verdict of "guilty," proof might be given of the previous conviction; such proof never having been intended to affect the verdict of the Jury, but only the sentence of the Court after conviction. The second object of the Bill however, was of much importance; and he had no doubt would receive the attentive consideration of the House. In his judgment, some change of the law, as it related to juvenile offenders, had become absolutely necessary. The number of such cases had of late years, greatly increased. It appeared from the Returns on the Table of the House, that a large proportion of the convictions were of persons under twenty-one years of age. These juvenile offenders were first taken before a Magistrate, and then committed to prison to await their trials. That mode of dealing with them was attended with great expense to the public; but the worse consequence was, that, by remaining so long in a prison, as they frequently did, between committal and trial, these youthful offenders were exposed to every sort of contamination from the society of some of their fellow-prisoners; and their morals often became so utterly depraved, from this cause, as to render their future improvement, and their subsequent return to good conduct, and their duties to society, almost a hopeless matter. They came out worse than they went in; and thus the great end of punishment—the prevention of crime—was, in their cases, signally defeated. He would not enter into any details, but would merely allude to one instance, in order to show the effect of the early imprisonment of children for trifling offences. In the county which he had the honour to represent, considerably more than half the criminal offenders were under twenty-one years of age; and, during the last seven years, 1,300 individuals had been tried, who were under the age of eighteen; and of these one half were under fifteen years of age. A great portion of them were kept in prison from six weeks to two months, to await their trials; so that, in fact, punishment was inflicted on them before conviction. The system of punishing boys who had done acts of mischief (for a great number of these delinquents had no idea of committing felony), by indiscriminate imprisonment in common gaols, instead of keeping them on bread and water, and in solitary confinement, for a limited period, or of otherwise punishing them in a summary and judicious manner, was highly objectionable. Boys being sent to gaol, for they hardly knew what, soon became corrupted and depraved; their sense of shame was destroyed; and they were converted into hardened offenders. It was unnecessary to state, that the only objects of punishment are the prevention of crime and the reformation of offenders; and if those objects were not accomplished, and if punishments, instead of doing good, increased the evils which they were intended to remedy, there could be no doubt that the system was radically wrong. Such was the case with respect to our treatment of juvenile offenders. It was the object of the Bill to remedy this defect. Instead of allowing boys of tender age to be taken before Magistrates—for petty larcenies—to be bailed, or in default of bail sent to gaol, and then tried and imprisoned on conviction, he would have them brought at once to the Petty Sessions, there to be tried by the Magistrates, and summarily punished or discharged, as the case might require. If committed to a house of correction, care ought to be taken of the classification and the religious and moral instruction of youthful offenders. He should have no objection to have a Jury to assist at the Petty Sessions, if it should be thought necessary. If this, however, should not be thought desirable, in order to prevent convictions for felony without the intervention of Juries, it would be proper that many of the crimes now classed as felonies should, when committed by youths, be treated as misdemeanors. This alteration in the law would remove the objection which existed to dealing with such offenders without the intervention of a Jury, and reconcile the mind to summary convictions before Magistrates. The hon. Baronet concluded by making the Motion above specified.

did not intend to oppose the Motion. He thought the first object which the hon. Baronet had in view was already attained, because the second count in the indictment was seldom read to the Jury, and because Judges did not in the first instance tell the Jury to find whether a prisoner had been before convicted [Cries of "the Jury knew it"]. He agreed it was not right a Jury should be prejudiced by having that knowledge; and if the hon. Baronet could succeed in preventing the Jury from knowing that a prisoner had been before convicted, he should be glad. With regard to the second object which the hon. Baronet had in view, it was certainly very desirable that boys not hardened in crime should be spared the contamination of the associates they usually met with while waiting in gaol to take their trial; but he confessed that he saw great difficulty in the hon. Baronet so framing this Bill, as not to let young experienced thieves, bred up in crime from their cradles, escape. If that were suffered, as it was well known that many boys in London were very experienced thieves, they would escape punishment; and it was of urgent necessity that boys nursed up in the career of crime should not escape punishment under the pretext of their age. There was a great difficulty in fixing the age of what were called juvenile offenders. Should it be under ten, or fourteen, or sixteen? The Committee which had sat on this subject had found it surrounded with difficulties. If the Bill were brought in, it might certainly, under proper management, tend to check crime. He looked upon the object of the hon. Baronet as most desirable, though he doubted if it were easy of execution.

supported the Motion. The present system was only fitted to entrap a Jury into a verdict of guilty. He had been a member of that honourable House when Mr. Davenport had introduced his Bill on the subject, and had then supported his propositions. As to the establishment of a separate jurisdiction for the juvenile offenders, he thought the great evil of it would be, that a lighter punishment being by law awarded to persons under a certain age, experienced thieves would, in place of committing depredations themselves, employ those young persons, to the great injury of public virtue. There was a great difference between juvenile offenders in large towns, such as London, and in the country districts; and he thought it would be advisable to give Magistrates the power of summary conviction with regard to boys who should be brought before them in the country. He was ready to admit, as he had already said, that the case was different in towns. The great object was to guard against the contamination of these young offenders in gaol; and he thought that might be effected.

supported the Motion. As Chairman of the Staffordshire Quarter Sessions, he knew that one half of the offenders who were brought before him were under the age of twenty-one. It was totally impossible, even under the best system of gaol discipline, to keep the juvenile prisoners apart from the more practised offender. At Stafford they had instituted a school for the purpose of instructing the young culprit, but the effects of the instruction were soon wiped out by the company they kept. It was sad to see the trifling offences for which children were exposed to punishment. He remembered the case of a boy who was committed to gaol for stealing three eggs, and he was kept two months in prison before he was tried, and then, for this petty offence, he was exposed to all the solemn proceedings of a public trial. He wished that a distinction were made by the law between large and small felons. He wished also that the hon. Baronet had proposed to draw a distinction between minor and greater offences, and to give the Magistrates power to try the minor offences in Petty Sessions. That would be of great use in preventing crime, and would save expense to the country. He would give, if it were necessary, the Magistrates in Petty Sessions the power to summon a Jury like the Coroners. With a Jury of that kind, the Petty Sessions would be as competent to try the minor offences as the Quarter Sessions. He would, however, give the criminal the option to be tried before the Magistrates alone, or before the Magistrates and a Jury.

said, that he would at present give no opposition to the bringing in of this Bill; but that, in every future stage of it, if it extended the power of the Magistrates, or went further to diminish the use of the Trial by Jury, he would divide the House upon it, even if he stood alone. The use of the Trial by Jury had been going on lessening and lessening by degrees during the last forty years; and a bare enumeration of the instances in which by law it had been dispensed with during that period would shock the two hon. Baronets who had spoken in support of this measure. If they should endow Magistrates with the power of trying felonies without the intervention of a Jury, who would then say that they should not hang also without a Jury? [No, no.] Gentlemen may say "No" to that proposition, but some years ago who amongst them would have believed that Magistrates would have got the power of inflicting punishment in so many instances as they now possessed it? Magistrates now inflicted forty times as much punishment as the Judges of the land; and let them bear in mind who those Magistrates were. He spoke with every respect of the two hon. Baronets who had addressed the House upon this subject, he did not take them into consideration when he spoke thus; but there were different Magistrates in the country from them. A great proportion of the magistracy of the country consisted of clergymen of the Church of England, who were looking for preferment; of officers of the army and navy, who were looking for promotion; and of officers upon half-pay, who would not wish to be scratched out of the half-pay list by doing anything displeasing to the Minister of the day. In fact, a great portion of the magistracy consisted of the most dependent men upon the face of the earth. The hon. Baronet should take that fact into his consideration when he proposed to give the Magistrates the power of summarily disposing of offenders without the intervention of the Trial by Jury. The independence of the Judges was the constant boast of Englishmen; that the King himself could not displace the judges was a remark repeatedly in the mouths of the people of this country. But just look to the Magistrates, and behold the contrast! The Magistrates were nominated at the pleasure of the Minister of the Crown, they held their situations at the pleasure of the Minister of the Crown, and many of them could have their bread taken from them by the Minister of the Crown. They were, in truth, as dependent a set of men, generally speaking, as breathed the breath of life, and yet it was to such men that these powers of summary conviction were proposed to be given. He should be ashamed to sit there as a Representative of the people of England without protesting against such a measure. He should have had no objection to the measure if the hon. Baronet proposed a mitigation of the punishment of young offenders, but then as the hon. Secretary opposite had truly observed, there was the difficulty of discriminating between offenders. It was well known that some boys of five years old were as quick, and as great adepts, as other boys at ten years of age, and that boys of ten years of age were often as accomplished, and indeed more accomplished thieves than other offenders who were ten years older. It was, in fact, impossible to provide for the varieties presented by human nature. He repeated that he would oppose the measure in all its future stages.

supported the Motion. He complained of the attack which the hon. member for Oldham had made upon the general body of the magistracy of England. That hon. Member had spoken of officers of the army and navy and of clergymen of the Church of England who were Magistrates, as if they were ready to sacrifice the ends of justice to the basest and most interested purposes. It was too much to hear such an unjust attack made upon them in that House. He was acquainted with many clergymen of the Church of England, and with many officers of the army and navy who were Magistrates, and he would say this for them, that he never saw men who were more disposed to do their duty firmly and impartially, with as much regard for the interests of justice as the hon. Member himself could possibly evince, and without any of those base ideas of promotion or preferment from his Majesty's Ministers which that hon. Member had attributed to them.

said, that he did not pretend to say, that Clergymen of the Church of England, and officers of the army and navy were worse than other men, he had only contrasted their dependence with the independence of the Judges. In doing so he meant to cast no imputation upon them.

in illustration of the trifling offences for which boys were committed to gaol in the country, mentioned an instance which occurred at the Assizes for Devonshire last summer. A boy was committed for stealing a mackerel, whose imprisonment and trial cost the county 40l., and yet when he was convicted the Judge sentenced him to only one day's imprisonment. He stated that he knew of another case, where two boys who had stolen a few potatoes on a Sunday out of the open window of a storehouse, and had roasted them at an adjoining lime-kiln, were taken up, and brought twenty miles to the county gaol. They were afterwards tried and convicted, and those boys, both before and after their conviction, were confined amongst a parcel of felons, some of whom were in prison for an offence that he would not name. Would not a jurisdiction on the part of Magistrates to try such petty offences with the assistance of a Jury, remedy such evils? He certainly should, with the hon. member for Oldham, object to the taking away the Trial by Jury in any case, and the Magistrates might be empowered to empanel a Jury for the trial of such trifling offences as he had alluded to. The retaining the Trial by Jury in such cases would gratify the feelings of the people, and would in every respect promote the ends of public justice.

said, that in no case of misdemeanor, much less in a case of felony, should a Magistrate have the power of summarily convicting without the intervention of a Jury. The honest and well-founded prejudices of the people of England would not endure a contrary practice. He would suggest the propriety of referring the subject to a Committee up stairs, who should examine the whole question of secondary punishments. The question was one which had attracted attention lately, not only in this country, but across the Atlantic.

said, he was sorry to take up the time of the House, but every alteration whatever in the law was, in his opinion, of the greatest importance. He could not, therefore, allow the subject to pass without protesting against the deprivation of the juvenile offenders of the benefit of Trial by Jury. He was friendly to the principle of inquiring into the previous character of prisoners. Nothing could be of more importance than to impress upon persons the idea that character constituted a species of castle. In his opinion, many of the proceedings on criminal trials were the most farcical that could easily be imagined. Nothing, for instance, could be more ridiculous than the scruples which were made about allowing a prisoner to convict himself. The prisoner, in his opinion, ought to be called upon to explain any circumstance which might appear by the evidence to be of an equivocal nature. Lord Mansfield deserved great credit for the good sense of his remarks upon the subject. He hoped he should live to see the time when every criminal should be interrogated as to the particulars of the transaction respecting which he was accused. He would not advocate the subjecting of a prisoner to any duress, to any imprisonment, to any torture, in order to extort a confession from him; nor would be desire that a prisoner should, as in a neighbouring country, be subjected to all the ingenious cross-questioning on the part of the Judge, which was usual in a case conducted by counsel; but nothing could be more preposterous than the caution frequently given from the Bench to a prisoner, not to criminate himself. Instead of using every method in order to reach the real facts of the case, it was not unusual, upon a prisoner pleading guilty, for the Judge to point out to him the favourable point in the evidence, and to advise the prisoner to withdraw his plea, and take the chances of a trial. He had known that caution given in the case of a very bad murder. The criminal took the Judge's advice, and was successful in obtaining a favourable verdict; but he died in prison. There was also too much delay before trial. The whole system of criminal trials required revision; and the basis of the reform should be to make them come on more rapidly, and to get rid of those foolish scruples, which operated as a protection to the guilty.

only wished to defend the Magistrates from the attacks of the hon. member for Oldham. In the cases which had been referred to they were, under the existing state of the law, obliged to commit the offenders for trial.

was perfectly sensible of the evil which resulted from sending juvenile offenders to gaol, where they were brought into contact with the more experienced criminals; but he could not make up his mind to dispense with a Trial by Jury as a remedy for the evil. He had always considered the Trial by Jury as the most valuable protection of the subject, and he objected to abolish it in any case, lest that should be made a precedent for taking it away in others. He, therefore, would not give his support to the Bill in its future stages, unless that part of it which proposed to invest Magistrates with the power of summary conviction were expunged. At the same time he wished it to be understood that he did not participate in the sentiments of those who attributed to the Magistrates a harsh and an oppressive exercise of their authority; on the contrary, he thought the conduct of the Magistracy was generally lenient, and characterized by a leaning towards prisoners. It was notorious, for instance, that they carried to the utmost extent the erroneous practice of not interrogating prisoners or calling upon them to tell their own story. He remembered once, a prisoner who was on his trial for sheep-stealing, being asked whether he had any question to put to his master, who had given evidence against him, replied, "All I have to say is, that I am sorry for what I have done, and I hope my master will forgive me; and, if he does, I never will do anything of the kind again;" whereupon the Magistrates on the Bench stopped him, observing that he must not convict himself, and other witnesses were called to prove the fact which the prisoner had already admitted. He thought Magistrates ought to ask accused persons to account for their time at the period when the crimes were alleged to have been committed. With respect to the other measure, he was of opinion that the fact of a prisoner's previous conviction ought to go before a Jury. If a prisoner's character were good let him have the benefit of it; but, on the other hand, if it were bad, let it weigh against him.

said, he had heard of a frivolous case where a boy was placed at the bar for stealing sixteen pounds of dung, and he had no doubt but that if the Magistrate had possessed the power of summary conviction, the prisoner would have been sent to the treadmill.

, in reply, stated that he would avail himself of the suggestions which had been thrown out in the course of the debate. His only object in introducing the measure was to do away with a notorious and extensive evil.

, in rising to submit his promised Motion, said, that when his hon. friend, the member for Middlesex, some weeks ago, presented the London petition for the improvement of the criminal code, they were reminded, and very properly, of the great improvement which had already been made in it. Although he fully admitted that, yet he thought it could not be denied that much still remained to be done before the criminal code of laws could be said to be in a satisfactory state. The more the public were accustomed to consider the subject of criminal jurisprudence, the more anxious did it become to remove all traces of that sanguinary character which were impressed on it in those times when, in the words of Mirabeau, "blood, and nothing but blood, and pounds of flesh," were required for every offence. He wished the Government had leisure to undertake an entire revision and reform in the criminal code. It seemed to him that such a work could be best done by the Government. But there were many Gentlemen in that House whose opinions were entitled to great authority who entertained a different opinion, and who thought that the necessary improvements in our code were best made by the exertions of individual Members bringing forward motions for such Amendments as to themselves might seem most convenient. He had therefore determined to bring under the consideration of the House the state of the law in regard to two offences, respecting which he believed there could be no doubt that the law ought to be changed. But the change he should propose was rather nominal than real. The laws denouncing punishment of death on the crimes of housebreaking with larceny, and stealing in a dwelling-house, any one therein being put in fear, had long been all but dead letters in the Statute-book. They had been for many years, and they could now be, but very rarely executed, and they seemed only to be left on the Statute-book as a remnant of the barbarism of former times. Looking at the returns, it would be seen that for the crime of housebreaking during the last seven years, out of every ninety-one in England and Wales who had been convicted, not more than one had been executed. Taking the last two years, the proportion of executions to convictions was still less. In 1831, out of 517 convictions there had been only one execution. In 1832, out of 583 convictions, there had been only four executions; and in this latter case he believed it would be found that those which were stated to be executions for housebreaking were, in reality, executions for burglary. He had been informed that this was the case, on authority in which he placed the greatest confidence. Now, during the same two years in London and Middlesex, although there had been 122 convictions for this offence, there had not been one execution. It was true, that it was stated, that in the year 1832 one execution had taken place, but that was a mistake. The execution alluded to was that of Drewitt, and his offence was certainly not housebreaking, but burglary. Of the other offences, namely, robbery, &c., no distinct mention was made of it in the returns, but he supposed it was included under the general head of larceny, &c. And with respect to that offence, what did the returns show? Why, that out of 867 persons convicted of that offence in England and Wales, fourteen only had been executed. In 1832, out of fifty-nine persons convicted, none were executed. In 1831, out of 113 who were convicted, only one was executed, and so on. Again, in London and Middlesex, during the last three years, there had been but one execution; and during the two years preceding the last three years, there had been but one execution in each year. Here, then, was expressed, in the strongest possible manner, what Beccaria called the tacit disapprobation of the laws in the non-execution of them. If in the time of Sir Samuel Romilly it had been admitted to have been a grave charge against our laws that not one in twenty of the persons convicted were executed, what could be said of a law of that sort where not one in ninety sentenced to die was executed? In such a state of things it seemed absurd to pretend that the law could be any terror to evil doers. The criminal, where the chances were so greatly in his favour, was sure to calculate on the chance of escape. But such a state of the law was a terror to the injured and the innocent. Those who had made inquiries into the subject knew that when, in cases of that sort, the law was allowed, as it was said, to take its course, the sure result was to make many persons more unwilling to prosecute than they were before, to increase the number of acquittals, where there were prosecutions, and consequently to bring about that state of things so well described by the present Archbishop of Dublin, who said, that he met with instances in his own neighbourhood of persons of the best character not only refusing to prosecute, but labouring in every way to promote the escape of the guilty because the law denounced death against the offences, and they could not bring themselves to incur even the remote and almost imaginary risk of exposing a thief to that fate. He held in his hand some tables which proved, beyond all possibility of contradiction or doubt, the fact of the unwillingness of Juries to make themselves instrumental in giving effect to the sanguinary enactments of our code. Anything on this subject, he was aware, might be looked upon as a work of supererogation, so well ascertained was the fact; but it was so clearly and unanswerably established by these tables, which had been drawn up with great care and labour by Mr. Wrightson, formerly a Member of that House, that he was really anxious to trouble the House with them for a few minutes. A comparison was made of the total number of acquittals on capital charges with those on non-capital charges, during the seven years ending 1831, from which it appeared that in England and Wales the centesimal proportions of acquittals to commitments on capital cases were twenty-eight, while on non-capital charges the acquittals were only ten, the difference between the two being ten. Thus in England nearly eleven more out of 100 committed for trial were acquitted on capital than on non-capital charges. Again, in London and Middlesex, it appeared the centesimal proportions of acquittals to commitments in capital cases was forty-four; ditto, in non-capital cases, twenty; the difference being twenty-four. Why was this? If they looked at the number of cases in which executions took place in London and Middlesex, and compared them with the number in England and Wales, the cause would be apparent. In England and Wales five out of every 100 were executed; in London and Middlesex ten were executed. The greater probability that the last penalty of the law would be inflicted in the latter case made Juries more reluctant to convict, as had been observed by Mr. Wrightson, the author of those statements. Again, they had tables giving the centesimal proportion of executions to convictions, and the centesimal proportion of acquittals to commitments for the crimes of robbery, burglary, and housebreaking, in England and Wales, and in London and Middlesex. The first table was for England and Wales, the second for London and Middlesex; embracing a period of twenty-one years, from 1810 to 1830. Looking at the first table, it appeared that, throughout the whole of that period, in England and Wales, the executions for robbery had been much more numerous than for the other two crimes in the table. The acquittals for robbery had been much more numerous also. In the first period the proportion of executions to convictions had been—for robbery, fourteen; for burglary, thirteen; for housebreaking, three. The proportion of acquittals for the same offences had been as 36, 27, 22; for the second period the executions were as 12, 6, 1; in the third period the executions were as 6, 3, 1; the acquittals were as 37, 21, 19. Again, burglary had been punished with death less often than robbery, but more often than housebreaking. For instance, in the first period the executions for burglary and housebreakings were 13 and 3—the acquittals were 27 and 22; in the second period the executions were 6 and 1—the acquittals were 23 and 16; in the third period, when the executions were 3 for burglary and I for housebreaking, the acquittals were 21 and 19. Again, comparing the second period with the first, a considerable diminution was found to have taken place in the number of executions for all the three crimes in the tables. A corresponding decrease would be remarked in the number of acquittals; in the first period the number of executions being as 33, the number of acquittals were as 85; in the second period, the executions being as 19, the acquittals fell down to 60; in the third period, the executions for burglary declined in the proportion of 6 to 3, and the acquittals for that crime declined also. The second table showed, as was observed by the author of those tables, the reluctance of Juries to convict of capital offences in a manner still more striking and more conclusive. In London and Middlesex robbery presented the greatest number of executions and the largest number of acquittals; the executions for robbery, burglary, and housebreaking being, in the first period, 5, 3, 1—the acquittals 37,22, 18; in the second period, the executions being as 13, 8, 5, and the acquittals as 49, 34, 31. It should be observed from that statement, that in housebreaking, where there was the smallest number of executions, there was also the smaller number of acquittals, while, in burglary, a medium number of executions and a medium number of acquittals. Now, there was one other view which these tables presented. It appeared that the executions in London and Middlesex, in proportion to the convictions, were—for robbery twice as numerous, for burglary nearly three times as numerous, for housebreaking five times as numerous, as in England and Wales. What was the effect? The acquittals in London and Middlesex, in proportion to the commitments were, during the last seven years, one-third more numerous than in England and Wales, and that in each of the three crimes about 12 more out of every 100 escaped in the former than in the latter. He had troubled the House with these statements because they' proved, in the clearest manner, the repugnance of Juries to find persons guilty of offences punishable with death; and he agreed with the very ingenious author of those statements, and he thought the House would agree with them, that no further proofs could be wanting. What, then, was the effect of attempting to restrain crime by punishments which the public felt to be excessive? Why, it secured impunity to crime in a great many cases where it ought to have been visited with a moderate punishment. With respect to the crime of housebreaking, the law had lately been made more severe even than it was formerly. Under the old law it was necessary that property to the value of 5s. should have been stolen; but by the Act introduced by Sir Robert Peel that was altered, and a stealing to the smallest possible amount constituted the capital offence. Why was that course taken? He did not recollect any reason which the right hon. Baronet gave for it. It occurred to him, that it might have been done because Juries were in the habit of finding the value of the property stolen was much less than the value required to constitute the capital offence. If this was the intention of the right hon. Baronet, he had failed, as men ever would fail who attempted to legislate without reference to the public feeling. Juries could not now secure the escape of the criminal by finding the property stolen to be of the value of 4s. 11¾d., but they effected the same object by a verdict of stealing only. A similar failure had attended another of the enactments which formed part of the Bill of the right hon. Baronet, and he mentioned it in order to illustrate and prove the general principle which he was advocating. By the old law privately stealing in a dwelling-house to the value of 40s. was a capital offence. The right hon. Baronet, acting on a contrary principle to that which he had pursued in the case of housebreaking, raised the value to 5l. Under the old law, Juries were in the habit, in a great number of cases, of finding the property stolen under the value of 40s.—namely, 39s. And what did they do now? Why, they found it to the value of 99s. A great deal had been said, at different times, upon the atrocious and dangerous character of the crime of burglary; but there were two offences confessedly of much less criminality and danger, to which the law awarded the same punishment that it did to a higher and graver offence. There could not well be a stronger instance, although the Statute-book abounded with similar ones, of the utter disregard of principle in the formation of the criminal code. While it was so—while it was thus capricious, and therefore unjust—could it be expected to obtain the respect of the public, or be effective for the suppression of crime? Was it not disgraceful to the Legislature to retain the capital punishment in such cases as those where the offence was comparatively a small one, while in other states they were making the experiment whether the punishment of death might not be dispensed with altogether? A writer, speaking particularly of the prisons of Pennsylvania, said, there was the best of all evidence—demonstrative proof—that brutal treatment, hanging, and gibbeting were neither the most economical nor the most efficacious, as they were certainly neither the most humane nor the most enlightened modes of punishing crime, or reforming society. Other states had been induced to follow the example so successfully set by Pennsylvania, and up to that time with the best effect. Every one knew, too, that the punishment of death had been abolished in Tuscany for a period of twenty years. It was revived by the authority of Buonaparte, and had not since been entirely abolished, though it was very rarely inflicted. But what was perhaps not so well known was, that during a period of sixty years in that state, taking three periods of twenty years—the twenty preceding the abolition, the twenty during which it was abolished, and the twenty subsequently—fewer crimes had been committed during the period of the abolition than in either the preceding or the subsequent periods. It was one of those cases which, as a matter of history, might appear more surprising than fiction. But he would mention a case which must come home to themselves and to their own feelings. It was well known that during the time that the amiable and kind-hearted Sir James Mackintosh (a name never to be mentioned without feelings of deep regret for his loss) was Recorder of Bombay, (a period of seven years), the punishment of death was entirely discontinued. If the experiment ever was to fail, its failure might have been expected in such a place as Bombay—a crowded Indian sea-port, composed of a mixed, and even shifting population. But what was the result? It had been most successful, for Sir James Mackintosh declared from the bench in his last charge, when he was going to return to England, that the district had been governed without one capital punishment, and with no increase of crime. He, however, was not at that moment advocating any such extensive alteration in the laws of this country; all he asked was, to make the written enactments conformable to what, with a few exceptions, was the actual practice. If he obtained leave to bring in a Bill, he should propose to abolish the punishment of death altogether for these offences, and in place of death to give the Judges the power at their discretion of punishing the criminal by imprisonment or hard labour, or by transportation for seven or fourteen years, or by imprisonment and hard labour first, and transportation afterwards. He was convinced that, under such a law as that, crimes would be much more certain of being punished than they now were, which every one would admit to be the great object to be aimed at in all legislation with a view to its efficiency. No one could have looked into the subject without being aware of the great increase of crime in late years. He hardly supposed that would be used as an argument against his Motion. But those crimes had increased, not only in spite of, but, as he thought, because of, the present injudicious system of criminal jurisprudence; but, be that as it might, the fact, though to be deplored, was what no man could be surprised at. What had been done to check the increase of crime? Almost nothing. We had, perhaps, the most inefficient police in the world. It was true, that in the metropolis there was a police, founded, as he thought, on some wrong principles, being too much dependent on the Secretary of State for the time being, but still an efficient police; but, throughout the country generally, there was nothing which deserved the name of a police, and consequently one of the great means of preventing crime was wanting. Then, with respect to our gaols, we had good laws it was true, but they were, in many cases, shamefully neglected, and even in one of the prisons in this metropolis, he was told there was hardly anything which deserved the name of classification of prisoners observed in it. Again what had they done for the improvement or education of the people? So far from having attended to that subject, they had allowed a whole generation to grow up in the manufacturing towns under circumstances which made it impossible for them to obtain any mental improvement whatever. Neither should they overlook the effect of such laws as those now under consideration in demoralizing the people. He could conceive few things more prejudicial to the morality of the people, or to the interests of justice, than the practice of Juries finding what had been called compassionate verdicts in opposition to the strongest evidence, and, in other words, uttering a falsehood—committing perjury for the purpose of avoiding giving effect to the law. The Legislature had begun to alter this system, but it must go on still further. He knew the reform which he was then proposing was a very trifling one and went but a very little way towards the accomplishment of those objects, but if it was adopted it would at least cure the anomaly of treating cases of petty theft with the same severity as murder and parricide, and would enable prosecutors, witnesses, and Juries to punish guilt in many cases, which they would not do at present, without violence to their feelings and consciences. The hon. Member concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill for the repeal of so much of the 7th and 8th of Geo. 4th, c. 29, s. 12, as enacts, that if any person shall break and enter any dwelling-house, and steal therein any chattel, money, or valuable security, to any value whatever, or shall steal any such property, to any value whatever, in any dwelling-house, any person therein being put in fear, every such offender being convicted thereof shall suffer death as a felon.

did not by any means vise to oppose the Motion of his hon. friend. On the contrary, no object was nearer his heart than that the punishment of death should be abolished where-ever it was found practicable to abolish it; although he was not sanguine enough to believe that it would ever be possible to abolish it altogether. Crimes of violence, he feared, they must continue to be under the painful necessity of visiting with death. For murder, for burglary, for arson, for all crimes which threatened life, it seemed to him that the punishment of death accorded with the natural feelings of man. Until two years ago the criminal code of England was one of unexampled severity-But it must not be forgotten, that very important measures had been adopted for the purpose of diminishing that severity. He was happy to say, that since his Majesty's present Government had come into power, in the course of the last year, the offences of coining, of forgery, of sheep-stealing, of horse-stealing, of stealing in a dwelling-house, all of which had formerly been capital, had been made not capital offences. He felt the country was under considerable obligation to the right hon. member for Tamworth for the great efforts he had made in ameliorating the criminal code of the country; and he was glad that that right hon. Baronet was absent, as it afforded him a more fitting opportunity of expressing his sincere gratitude to him. But how it came to pass, that the criminal law, notwithstanding a wish for its amelioration, had been made more severe upon certain points, he was at a loss to conceive. Yet so it was, that, as the law now stood, if a boy were, in passing a pastrycook's shop, to take a fancy to a bun or a cake, and put his hand through the glass of the window to get possession, that would be construed into a breaking and entering, and be looked upon as a capital felony; or, if he were to break the window with a stick, and put it in, that also would be a constructive breaking and entering of a similar description. He was glad, therefore, that his hon. friend, the member for Maldon, had drawn the attention of the House to this subject, as it was right that the law, in so far, at least, should be amended. Upon other parts of the Motion, however, he must confess that he entertained strong doubts. If, for instance, a person or persons entered a house with intent to steal, and put the inhabitants in bodily fear, who would venture to say, that that ought not to be considered a capital offence? Highway robbery was looked upon as a capital offence, and was so admitted by the hon. Member who introduced the Motion, because the party attacked was placed in bodily fear of his life. Why, then, should it not be considered a capital felony to enter a dwelling with intent to rob and place the inmates in equal fear? Upon these grounds it was, that he should, in the future stages of the Bill (should it be introduced), suggest that its provisions should not go further than related to breaking into a dwelling-house in the day time, where the parties were not put in bodily fear. He fully concurred with those hon. Members who advocated a total revision of our penal code; but he must, at the same time, point out the inconvenience likely to arise from every hon. Member taking his own view, and introducing his own separate measure for that purpose. Let the House but consider for a moment that there were at present ten notices of motions on the books for the amendment of the penal, and fifteen for revisions of the civil law of the country. Surely this was not the most effectual course of proceeding. Government were most anxious to remedy the evils which existed; but surely it was not too much to expect that time should be allowed to make that uniform revision which was considered on all hands to be necessary. If each hon. Member, acting upon his own suggestion, were to introduce his own specific mode of redress, it would be impossible that any thing like a general and uniform revision could be brought about.

concurred in the observations of the hon. and learned Solicitor General, and was rather surprised that they had not led the hon. and learned Gentleman to propose a Committee on the subject. For his own part, he had, for the last twenty years, been actively and earnestly engaged in endeavouring to bring about a reform in the penal laws of this country, both in and out of office. He had been a member of the different Committees obtained by Sir Samuel Romilly and Sir James Mackintosh, and had thoroughly investigated the various grounds upon which a mitigation of our penal code was sought for by both those great men. He had always thought that a different construction ought to be put upon the law relating to offences which might, with due caution, be prevented, such as robberies from the person, and others of a different nature. For instance, every person who fastened up his house in order to proceed about his lawful and necessary occupations was entitled, from the laws of his country, to the highest protection which those laws could bestow, in order that the property so left should remain uninjured. Gentlemen must know, that cases occurred in which the whole savings of an industrious life were carried off; and he certainly was afraid, unless some effective system of secondary punishment could be devised, that to abolish the punishment of death in all cases would be an incentive to robbery. He thought the offence of forcibly entering houses with intent to rob, and putting the inmates in bodily fear, should be placed on the same footing, as, doubtless, persons so placed would be likely to resist, and that resistance would lead to the loss of life on the part of the person resisting; and if so, the aggressor should be subject to the severest penalty of the law. He would not now say whether hereafter it might not be deemed advisable to substitute secondary punishment in certain cases of this description; but should such be the case, still they ought to be very cautious. He should be sorry to see the House sanctioning a Bill which went so far as this one did, at least for the present. Hereafter, when the system of secondary punishments had been more thoroughly investigated and matured, the proposed measure might be proper. They should, however, proceed gradually, and he, therefore, considered it more desirable that the House should wait and see the effect of the Bill passed in the last Session of Parliament. For his own part he should prefer the appointment of a Committee up-stairs on the subject, as it would give scope for more general inquiry and an opportunity of obtaining further information. When any hon. Member introduced a bill, no matter how limited its operation, he felt in some degree pledged and committed to it, without being able to go into the more extensive details of the general question. He hoped, therefore, the hon. Member would alter his Motion to the appointment of a Committee, which would be attended with this, amongst many other advantages, that it would give them an opportunity of obtaining the advice and assistance of the law officers of the Crown, from which the greatest benefits must arise.

said, it ought not to be lost sight of—that there was a wide distinction between putting a man's life in jeopardy and taking it away, though both offences were punished with death. He was aware of the difficulty suggested by the hon. and learned Solicitor General—namely, that there were so many notices of motions on these subjects that all the good effect of revising the law was in danger of being defeated. There was one objection which he felt to this measure in its present stage. The Bill of his hon. and learned friend, the member for Liverpool, it was well known, received what was called an amendment, in another place, at the suggestion of a noble and learned Lord. Having witnessed its practical working, he was very much inclined to doubt whether it was such an Amendment as ought to induce the House to dispense with the possibility of a capital punishment, so rarely exercised. As the Bill originally stood, by the 7th and 8th George 4th, not only was breaking into a dwelling-house, and putting a person in fear, made capital, but stealing in a dwelling-house above the value of 5l. was also made a capital offence. By the Bill of his hon. friend, the member for Liverpool, these offences were made not capital; and it was left to the discretion of the presiding Judge whether the sentence should be transportation or imprisonment. In another place, an Amendment was introduced, by which it was made imperative upon the Judges to transport for life in all those cases, and also in cases of cattle-stealing. Now, at the last Assizes at which he attended, a trial took place, the circumstances of which were these:—A boy, tempted by an opportunity which presented itself, stole from the till of his master a sum of above 5l. He was detected—he did not attempt to run away—he confessed the theft, and exhibited the greatest contrition; so much so, that his master, he believed, would have taken him back: at all events, he attended in Court to give him a good character, and so did other persons. He was advised to plead "guilty"—the poor lad pleaded guilty accordingly; and the Judge was actually obliged by the Statute to sentence him to transportation for life; whereas, if the Judge had had any discretion vested in him, he would not have sentenced the lad to more than six months' imprisonment. He was well aware that, on representation being made in the proper quarter, this sentence might be mitigated, and that application it would be his duty to make; but, in a case of this kind, the usual answer was, that certainty of punishment is substituted for severity; and there was, therefore, a disinclination to do away with the effect of the punishment. The House might not be aware that transportation for life was now a very severe punishment; because there must be hard service for the space of eight years before any mitigation could take place; which made it a tremendous penalty, more especially when the Judge had no discretion, and when it was inflicted indiscriminately on every description of persons. He declared that making it compulsory on the Judge to sentence the prisoner to transportation for life excited more abhorrence in his mind even than the farce of passing sentence of death upon a number of men upon whom it was never intended to execute the sentence, Unless they could be guaranteed against a similar amendment being introduced, in the same place, in this Bill, he for one, should be disinclined to give his vote for the proposition of the hon. Gentleman, much as he, from his soul, abhorred the severity and disproportionate effects of capital punishment. The proposition of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wynn) was, in his opinion, an eligible one. He thought that there ought to be a Board or Committee established—whether of Members of the Legislature, or others, he cared not, but of persons acquainted with these matters, who might be engaged in a revision of the whole of the civil and criminal law. By adopting that plan, they would be able to incorporate all the improvements that might suggest themselves to practical men, without the cumbersome mode which would otherwise have to be followed. It should be recollected that all the information they hitherto had on the subject of secondary punishment was of the most meagre character; that the question—important as it was—was still in abeyance; and till some positive conclusion upon it had been arrived at, he was afraid it would not be to any practical advantage that the House should legislate.

thought most of the difficulties arose from the imperfect specification of offences by our laws; and he could, on that occasion, not refrain from deprecating the mode in which the amendment of the criminal code had generally been attempted. The hon. member for Maldon was fortunate in having found an early hour of the night for the discussion; but the greater part, or even the whole, of the alterations hitherto made, were proposed at midnight sittings, or sittings after midnight. Even the great measure introduced by the right hon. member for Tamworth, by which the whole criminal law of England was altered, was a midnight measure. He would beg to suggest to the hon. member for Maldon, that, if a Commission were to be appointed to inquire into all offences against property, it would be advisable in him to withdraw his Motion for the present. At the same time he must observe, that the first part of it was so reasonable that, if the hon. Member pressed it, he (Mr. Fergusson) would support it. With respect to the law itself, he thought the invariable practice should be that a fixed and certain punishment was to be the general rule, and mercy and pardon in certain cases the exception. Upon this ground it was that he was anxious to ameliorate the law, and not let it go forth to Europe, that while we sentenced 400 or 500 persons capitally every year, yet there are no more than five or six of them found deserving of the punishment of death.

adverted to the observation of an hon. Member, that by a Bill introduced last year, the Judges were obliged to inflict one undeviating system of punishment. That was, however, not his fault; for though he had introduced the Bill, the clause complained of had been introduced in another place. Much had been said about the manner in which capital punishments were mitigated, and no doubt they were mitigated; but his objection was, that mitigation was left to the operation of a secret tribunal. There was not in that House, there was not in the country, a single individual who could, for a moment, suppose that this power, vested as it was in the Secretary of State for the Home Department, would be abused; but still his objection remained undiminished—the mitigation was the work of a secret tribunal, and was not the working of the law of the land. It was an arbitration that ought not to be left to any private person or set of persons. It was not to the practice, but to the principle of such a tribunal that he objected. He did not object to it because it was abused, but because it might be. The right hon. member for Montgomeryshire had said, in effect, that there were so many mitigations in our code proposed, that the number was quite starding to the orthodox maintainers of the existing law; his argument was valid, to a certain extent; but because there was a necessity for certain previous investigations, was the House, in all cases, to wait? Was it desirable that it should be considered whether some crimes were properly punishable or not? Was it to pause in abrogating those punishments which were far too severe for the crimes to which they were affixed? It was said, that the question of secondary punishments was an open question. It was true, that a gentleman had been sent to America to inquire into secondary punishments; but because he was making his inquiries, were they to wait, when a necessity had been made out—and he contended that his hon. friend had made out a necessity—for a Bill like the present? Certainly not; and he, for one, would most cordially and strenuously support his hon. friend. It had been asserted, by the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down, that the unsatisfactory definition of burglary and house-breaking was the cause of all the evils which exist. The definition of burglary, in our criminal code, was certainly a remarkably loose one, and ought not to be continued. The hon. member for Maldon, most properly, aimed at the abolition of capital punishment in the case of house-breaking; but although a man was now liable to be capitally convicted if he broke into a house by day, by this Bill the punishment would remain the same, if he committed it by night. If he did, he might be capitally punished. It had been stated by the hon. and learned Solicitor General, that if a boy stole a bun from a shop-window by day, he might be capitally convicted. If this Bill passed, however, if a boy stole a bun by night, he might be capitally executed also. This circumstance pressed strongly upon his mind the necessity of altering the definition of burglary. It had been laid down by the hon. and learned Solicitor General, as an almost unerring rule, that crimes which were accompanied by violence must be severely punished. That, to a certain extent, was true; but experience showed, that punishments of a very severe nature, though sometimes reconcilable to the feelings and habits of mankind, were of uncertain execution; and therefore the Legislature ought not to lay down strict dogmas as applicable to every possible case. The code of Draco was admired; and in much later times it was considered little better than heresy to assert that a man ought not to be hanged for horse-stealing. Might the opinions of mankind not change then, and might not less rigorous laws be adopted and approved of, even in cases of violence? There was a proof of the correctness of this assertion to be found in Belgium, where capital punishments had been abolished. The criminal law was, no doubt, admirably consolidated by the right hon. Baronet, the member for Tamworth, but it was an outline not well drawn, although exceedingly well filled up. What was the consequence? The whole of the edifice, erected with so much care and trouble, was tumbling to pieces. One hon. Member took away one brick; another, removed another; and in three or four years it would become its own dilapidated monument. The old code of criminal law was considered, in France, most severe. What had been done there? Why, that code had been mitigated to a very material extent. A learned and distinguished foreigner, who travelled in this country, had alluded, in one of his works, to the great tenderness evinced by an English Judge and Jury towards a prisoner on his trial. Whence arose that feeling? Did it not proceed from a consciousness that the prisoner was placed in an unfair position, and was not, as in other countries, fully and fairly defended? Let the Legislature do all it could for the elucidation of truth; let it be careful, however, not only to detect the guilty, but to give ample protection to the innocent. Considered abstractedly, a mild code of law was really a proof of a great and good country, because, in all countries where the law was mild, the inhabitants were also mild and civilized. This was the case in India, where capital punishments were rarely inflicted, and there the character and habits of the great mass of the people were of the most gentle description.

said, that though he was unacquainted with the details of the subject before the House, it was one so deeply interesting to the people of England that he could not refrain from saying a few words upon the occasion. Every Gentleman appeared to have his own project for altering the law, and he had his, which he would state before he sat down, and which fortunately lay in a very narrow compass. There was one thing connected with this subject which excited his displeasure, he had almost said disgust, and that was the everlasting references to France and America, in order to influence the opinions of people in England, which had set an example to the whole world of framing laws for ensuring the liberties of mankind—England, which was said to have been the cradle of liberty. Why should we be always looking abroad to see what other countries were thinking of us, and to see what America, and above all, what France was doing? As to what France was doing relative to the amelioration of the laws he knew nothing, and wished to know nothing, but from the accounts which he had seen of the manner in which justice was dispensed in French courts, he would say, the Lord deliver him from French courts of justice. Hon. Members who boasted so much of the excellence of the laws in America did not seem to be aware that they were no other than the English laws. At the time the independence of the United States was established the people made a solemn bargain that they should enjoy the Common and Statute Law of England, which they claimed as their birth-right. Gracious God! under these circumstances was it not a little too much that men should go to America to learn how to make laws for this country? A cargo of law was shipped from Liverpool to America to be mixed up with the law there, but he hoped that they would laugh at the stuff when it should be brought back. He had lived in America about ten years and a half altogether, and was acquainted with many intelligent persons there, and amongst others with several lawyers, and they all concurred in stating that every departure which had been made from the law of England was a change for the worse. Now for his project for altering the law. It was this; he would go back to the period when George 3rd ascended the throne, and taking all the Acts which had been pased since that time relative to the criminal law, be would fling them into the fire. It was with surprise he had heard the Solicitor-General for whom he entertained some respect, because he believed his intentions to be good,—it was with some surprise, that he heard him talk of further mitigations of the severity of the criminal code. Much had been said, for many years past, of Softening the criminal code, but he had watched the proceedings of Parliament pretty closely, and as far as related to the common people, he had seen that code at every rolling round of the sun grow harder and harder towards them. Did not the Solicitor-General know that Magistrates at their Quarter Sessions could now transport a man for seven years for poaching? To be sure the punishment of the pillory had been abolished. In a thoughtless moment the Judges sentenced a Lord to stand in the pillory. It was immediately discovered to be a barbarous and inhuman punishment,—one which could only have been thought of by our ignorant ancestors, and it was put an end to at once. Another Lord put an end to his existence, and the practice of burying suicides in cross-roads was not long suffered to continue. He was sometimes wicked enough to wish that a Lord would go out poaching, and then the cruel laws on that subject would be abolished to a certainty. Was it not monstrous that a man could be transported for seven years for being in pursuit of a hare or a pheasant, which, in law, as well as in reason, was as much the property of the poor, as of the rich [No, no]? He questioned whether any lawyer would cry "no," the Solicitor-General would not. He repeated that game was the property of all mankind—of the poor, as well as of the rich. There was another little law under which a man could be hanged for resisting a game-keeper; but he never heard of any attempts to mitigate its severity. A man who defended himself against a game-keeper who wished to take him, in order to have him transported for following a hare was guilty of a capital offence. This was a new law, not one framed by our ignorant ancestors, and under it no less than forty men had within the last twenty years been hanged by the nobility and gentry of England, in order to preserve their game. Ay, let that resound in their ears when they were talking about softening the criminal code. They had not that law in America. Formerly it was a capital offence to break into a house and steal to the value of 12d.; that sum was subsequently raised to 40s.; but the persons who made the alteration did not consider the change which had taken place in the value of money, for at the time the law was enacted 12d. would buy two fat sheep. It had been said, that crime in this country had increased in consequence of the want of education. He had hoped never again to hear that asserted, because nothing could be more contrary to the fact. Let any person draw four columns, and set down the amount of taxes, of poor-rates, of crime, and of education at the period when George 3rd ascended the throne, and at the present moment, and he would find that they had all gone on increasing together. It was impossible for any one who did not blind himself to the fact to fail to perceive that taxation was the cause of the increase of crime. The hon. member for Maldon had talked of the want of a country police. He was sorry to hear a country gentleman utter such sentiments. At the time the hon. Member was born no one felt the want of a country police. England had for centuries mocked at the French on account of their gendarmerie, who acted as spies on the soldiers, as well as the people, and now it was proposed to introduce them here. The gendarmerie, however, did not prevent the burning of the title-deeds of the nobility, and driving them out of the country, and if Parliament did not retrace its steps the establishment of a country police and the patching up of the criminal code would not prevent the occurrence of similar events in England.

regretted that a man of the talents of Mr. Cobbett should clothe himself in the worn-out vocabulary of prejudiced invective, so long worn only by the ignorant and the malevolent. If the hon. Member's argument was good for anything, it was for their returning omnino to the state of things which obtained in his lauded golden era of 1760. They should re-adopt the bloody penal code of that period; they should re-enact the capital punishments for minor offences then in force, with all the baneful consequences of such sanguinary enactments. Was the hon. Member aware that after the riot of 1780 the inhabitants of London were hanged in scores for participating in those riots. The hon. Member objected to improvements because they were brought from America and France, and the hon. Member was scandalized that an Englishman should travel out of his own country even for the purposes of improvement. He had read works of the hon. Member's in which the people had been called upon to turn their eyes to America, to France, and other countries, where everything was better than in our own. [Mr. Cobbett—Never!] It appeared that he had misread those works. He had no doubt that he was incorrect, that he had read them all the wrong way upwards. He had no doubt that there was not a single allusion to the cheapness and excellence of American government. Did the hon. Gentleman mean to say, that we might go across the Atlantic for one improvement, and shut our eyes to another? That we were to look for cheap Government and laws? That we were to learn one thing, and refuse to listen to anything else? The hon. Member had taken up the cast-off prejudices which everybody else had discarded with contempt; and whether the hon. Member abused the Jews on one day, or the French or Americans on another, he must say of the hon. Gentleman, with all his admiration of his talents—and no man had a greater—that he was pandering to the very worst prejudices of the lowest of mankind. The question before the House, however, from which he had wandered was the Bill brought forward so ably and satisfactorily by the hon. member for Maldon. The question was, whether or not that House was to proceed in its career of continuing the number of capital punishments, which still deformed the criminal code of this kingdom. He had observed, with only one exception, that there existed throughout that House, the strongest conviction that the crimes in our code, to which capital punishments were affixed, were still too numerous; and the only difference was, as to the best mode of getting rid of some, if not the greater part of them. There was also, some difference as to the principle to be applied as a test to this question. It appeared to him that they ought steadily to look to the principle whether or not men, abstractedly speaking, deserved capital punishment. It could not be denied that if the object of punishment was to diminish crime, capital punishments whether deserved or undeserved had not that effect; but in many instances had the contrary effect of increasing them. Let that be the test, and he invited the attention of the hon. and learned Solicitor General to it. He felt, with the hon. and learned Gentleman, as to the moral turpitude of a man who broke into a house, disturbed, alarmed, and agitated the family, and put them in fear. That was, no doubt, one of the greatest breaches of social order that could possibly be committed; and he was willing to admit, that if experience had shown that putting men to death secured the peace of society, and the absence of causes of fear and disquiet in the community at large, he should be sorry, much as he valued human existence, to repeal laws, which though they were severe, gave so much advantage to the people at large. But when he found that, in point of fact, the fear of this punishment seemed to operate more upon the minds of the Jury who were called upon to convict, than upon those who were to be convicted; and when this punishment gave a substantial privilege to those who were to be tried; he then came back to those punishments which, though not so severe in appearance, were more certain in execution—and he referred to experience in England and abroad—whether it was not better to ordain a certain small punishment, than an uncertain large one. He, therefore, certainly was anxious to support the hon. Gentleman's Bill; but he nevertheless concurred in the suggestions made by the hon. member for Stockport and others, that they ought not to confine themselves within a narrow compass. The question of capital punishments altogether was not a large one. It was one which might be disposed of by a Committee, in a short time; and therefore, he should suggest that the best mode of disposing of the question would be, to submit the consideration of the whole range of capital punishments, as applied to offences of all kinds, to a Committee up-stairs, whereby the principle might be set at rest, if not for ever, at least for a very long period; for every one must feel the great inconvenience—and he had no doubt the hon. member for Maldon felt it as much as any hon. Gentleman—of taking this great subject in small departments, and debating them night after night, when the same general principles were involved in each. He had had some experience of criminal Courts, and he was opposed to the Act brought in by the hon. and learned member for Liverpool, which took away from the Judges the discretion formerly vested ill them, and made it imperative upon them to pass a sentence of transportation for life on convicting men of certain offences. In this respect the Legislature proceeded in a hasty and premature manner. They rushed from almost unlimited discretion to no discretion at all, and fixed the same punishment for offences, which were as different as possible from one another. A learned Judge had described to him the pain he felt when compelled to pass sentence of transportation for life upon a boy under the following circumstances. A man and a boy went out together, and stole a sheep. The boy was ten years of age, and clearly acted under the control of his father—not having a wife the relationship was no excuse or palliation in the eye of the law, the boy was therefore convicted—and it was the painful duty of the Judge to pass sentence of transportation for life on this miserable child of ten years old; the very same sentence being passed upon the father who was the author of the crime. He had no doubt that the right hon. Undersecretary of State for the Home Department, had mitigated the severity of that sentence, but the sentence was publicly passed, and the effect would not be easily got rid of. A public trial ought to be a moral lesson to the whole of the people; and if the feelings of the spectators were outraged by manifest in- consistencies, how was it possible that they could preserve that respect and reverence of the law which was after all, the best security for its due execution. He should support the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, though at the same time he should have been better pleased if the measure had had a broader basis, so that the whole general subject might have been settled and decided upon at the same period.

:^* In rising to propose the Resolution of which I have given notice, I assure the House that I do so with considerable reluctance; not because I stand in doubt as to its propriety, but because I am a young Member, a Dissenter, and destitute of that talent which is requisite in order to do the subject justice. The Resolution in question will be found to contain three general propositions. 1. That the Church, as by law established, is not recommended by practical utility. 2. That its revenues have always been subject to Legislative enactments. 3. That the greater part, if not the whole, of those revenues ought to be appropriated to the relief of the nation. With regard to the fate of the Resolution in this House, I am by no means sanguine; but it will be admitted to be one of great importance, in some measure involving the interests of religion, and closely connected with the peace and prosperity of the people. To distinguish between the Church and the Establishment is by no means difficult. To the religion of the Church I am not at all hostile; but the Establishment I detest, contending that each religious sect ought to support its own ministers. Let that be done, and I shall be content. Now the, first general proposition is, that the Church, as by law established, is not recommended by practical utility. And here I would ask, "has the establishment of this nation the sanction of Christ or of his Apostles?" Let Paley answer the question. "We find in his (Christ's) religion no scheme of building up a hierarchy or of ministering to the views of human governments. Our religion, as it came out of the hands of its Founder and his Apostles, exhibited a complete abstraction from all views either of ecclesiastical

^* From the corrected copy.

or civil policy." No man who is at all acquainted with the Scriptures will be bold enough to assert that the New Testament contains a single expression calculated to lead to the conclusion that a religious establishment was deemed an eligible institution. But how was the fabric of Christianity raised? Not by means of the fostering care of secular authority, but in direct opposition to all the powers and establishments in the world; while it is well known to those who are acquainted with ecclesiastical history, that no religious establishment existed in the Christian world till the time of Constantine, when, being taken under the protection of the State, the Church immediately began to lose its purity. Now, not only is it a fact that the Establishment derives no sanction from Christ or his Apostles, but a little reflection will be sufficient to convince any unprejudiced man that it is utterly incompatible with the very essence of Christianity. What is Christianity? Is it an empty name? Is there nothing substantial or valuable in it? If that be the case, then away with it at once, and cease to pay a set of men large sums of money for the purpose of its promulgation. No! Christianity is a religion of good-will and kind affections, while our Establishment generates ill-will, heart-burnings, and animosities. Do we want proof of this? Then let us look at insulted, oppressed, impoverished, and distracted Ireland. Put down your Church Establishment there, and by means of its revenues satisfy the wants of the poor, and tranquillity will immediately be restored. But is there no irritation in England? Indeed there is, whatever the noble Lord (Althorp) and his right hon. colleagues may affect to think. The people of England are weary of the tithe system, and its doom is sealed. Did our Lord or the Apostles exact from those to whom they preached the Gospel? On the contrary, they went about doing good, and rather than be a burthen to the people, they frequently wrought with their own hands in order to obtain the necessaries of life. It is clear, then, that the Establishment derives no sanction from Christ or his Apostles, and that the system is quite incompatible with the religion we profess. In the next place, the Establishment holds out temptations to hypocrisy; and here, again, I have the authority of Paley. "Though some purposes of order and tranquillity may be answered by the establishment of creeds and confessions, yet they are at all times attended with serious inconveniences. They check inquiry; they violate liberty; they ensnare the consciences of the clergy by holding out temptations to prevarication." Is it not, I ask, a melancholy fact, that subscription tends to exclude the upright and conscientious, while it readily admits the subservient and unscrupulous? Take a man of great learning and talent, blended with extensive zeal and piety, a man anxious to promote the honour of God and the spiritual interests of his fellow-creatures; and yet if this man cannot digest the Athanasian creed, and all the doctrines contained in the thirty-nine articles, he must violate his conscience, or be excluded from the ministry; while a man destitute of talent, zeal, and piety, a man whose god is his belly, and who glories in his shame, may be admitted to that sacred office, by saying that he believes that which he either does not believe, or knows nothing at all about. And yet this is a venerable and Christian institution! Then, again, it will not be denied, that persecution has generally, if not invariably, been the work of a religious establishment. Who was it that were the principal actors in the crucifixion of our Lord? The Jewish Priesthood. Who drenched the altars of their idols with the blood of the primitive Christians? The pagan priesthood. Who was it that subsequently stained their hands with Protestant blood? The Popish priesthood. And who, in their turn, persecuted unto death the Popish priests? Why the Protestant clergy. Yes; but then the Protestant parsons would not now be guilty of such monstrous barbarities. I, for one, will not take upon myself to answer for that. Give them as much power as they had in the time of old Queen Bess, and make an attack upon their temporalities, and I tremble for the consequences. What means the bustle which the clergy are now making for the purpose of preserving what they hypocritically call the Church? Is it that they are afraid Christianity will be swept away? No such thing: on the contrary, the whole of their anxiety is for the preservation of their revenues. But, in the next place, corruptions and abuses are inseparable from our Church Establishment. Here, also, I have the sanction of the clergy themselves. Bishop War- burton, in his letters to Bishop Hurd, touching the practical authority of cabinets over the Church, says—" The Rabbins make the giant Gog or Magog contemporary with Noah, and convinced by his preaching; so that he was disposed to take the benefit of the ark. But here lay the distress; it by no means suited his dimensions. Therefore, as he could not enter in, he contented himself to ride upon it astride. Image to yourself the illustrious cavalier mounted on his hackney, and see if it do not bring before you the Church bestrid by some lumpish Minister of State, who turns and winds it at his pleasure." Now, hon. Members will bear in mind that this is not my language, but the language of a Bishop; and would to God that the Bishops of the present day would display that sincerity which evidently existed in the breast of Warburton. Paley also wrote to the same effect, but not in such a sarcastic and cutting manner. "The making of the Church" (says he) "an engine or even an ally of the State, converting it into the means of strengthening or diffusing influence, or regarding it as a support of regal in opposition to popular forms of government, have served only to debase the institution, and to introduce into it numerous corruptions and abuses." It is of no use to mince the matter, or to try to conceal the fact; the Establishment must be an engine of the State; the clergy must support the Government, however tyrannical or corrupt; they must fight, from the pulpit, the battles of the State. What, I ask, is the question in the selection of a Bishop? Having never appointed one myself, I may be mistaken; but doubtless the noble Lord (Althorp), if I be wrong, can set me right. It strikes me, then, that the question is not who is the fittest man to take the oversight of the Church, but who is the most likely to strengthen the Administration of the day. Truly it is a very venerable and Christian institution! But what shall we say as to religious liberty? Why, that the Establishment is utterly incompatible with it. Is religious liberty good? Then the Establishment must be bad. Upon what principle will you contend for an establishment? It must be an exclusive one; for if a man can be a good member of society, and ultimately gain admittance into heaven without passing through your Established Church in his way to it, what pretence is there for drain- ing the pockets of the people for the purpose of supporting an institution which, to say the most of it, can produce no effect which is not capable of being produced by other means? I assert, then, that there should be no Establishment at all; or if there be one, that then you ought to put an end to what is called religious liberty. But have we that liberty? No. It is true, indeed, that you allow me to worship God according to the dictates of my own conscience; but, at the same time, you make me contribute to the support of a system which I abhor, and firmly believe to be an abomination to God as well as pernicious to man. Then, again, your religious Establishment is manifestly injurious to civil liberty; and that, too, in the judgment of one of your own Archdeacons. "In all exclusive establishments (says Archdeacon Blackburn) where temporal emoluments are annexed to the profession of a certain system of doctrines and the usage of a certain routine of forms, and appropriated to an order of men so and so qualified, that order of men will naturally think themselves interested that things should continue as they are. A reformation might endanger their emoluments." One hardly knows which to admire most, the truth or the sagacity of the remark; and I put it to the House—" Could the people have been robbed of so many of their rights and plundered of so much of their substance as they have been, if the clergy had, as it was their duty to do, advocated the cause of civil liberty?" However, while their duty pointed one way, their interest pointed another; and, seeing that "a reformation would endanger their emoluments," they fled from liberty, and stuck to corruption. And, now, to close my observations on the first general proposition contained in the resolution which I shall have the honour to submit to the House, I assert that the Church, as by law established, is a regular trading concern. Speaking of the ecclesiastical powers. Dr. Hartley uses these words:—" They have all left the true, pure, simple religion, and teach for doctrines the commandments of man. They are all merchants of the earth, and have set up a kingdom of this world, abounding it" riches, temporal honours, and external pomp." Who is not aware of this distressing fact? Is it not as notorious as the sun at noon day, that livings are advertised in the public papers, and bought and sold as openly as cattle in a market? And what is the motive for entering into the sacred ministry? I do not say that it is thus in all cases; but in nine out of ten, or perhaps in ninety-nine out of a hundred, the motive is precisely the same as that which induces a man to enter into the army, the navy, or any other profession. They may say they are moved by the Holy Ghost; but the fact is, that they are influenced by a desire, which is common to us all, to make provision for the flesh. If the question were to be put to me—"Is the Establishment of no use?" I should answer, "Yes; it is very useful to the Aristocracy of the country;" and when I look at the Church, the army, the navy, the pensions, the sinecures, and the places, I am tempted to conclude that the Aristocracy take for granted that the Divine Being created all the rest of us for their convenience. However, be that as it may, Bishop Warburton's words touching the Aristocracy and the Church are very striking. "Our grandees," says he, "have at length found their way back into the Church. I only wonder they have been so long about it. But be assured that nothing but a new religious revolution, to sweep away the fragments that Harry the Eighth left after banqueting his courtiers, will drive them out again." And now, having shown that your Establishment is not sanctioned by Christ or his Apostles—that it holds out temptations to hypocrisy—that it fosters a persecuting spirit—that corruptions and abuses are inseparable from it—that it is incompatible with religious liberty—that it is injurious to civil liberty, and that it is a trading concern, I put it to the House, whether I have not established the first general proposition, "that the Church, as by law established, is not recommended by practical utility?" However, a great deal more might be urged. For instance, is not the certainty of emolument a temptation to remissness in duty? To a clergyman of the Established Church, it is of no sort of consequence what his parishioners think of him. Whether they approve or disapprove of his doctrines or manner of life—whether he discharge or neglect his clerical duties, to him it is of no consequence, because his emoluments are sure; whereas, if he depended on his congregation for support, there can be no doubt, whatever the bent of his inclination might be, that he would be more circumspect and attentive. Ought not a minister of religion to be zealous and laborious? Ought he not to be beloved by his hearers? Ought he not to give himself up to the study of the Scriptures? Now I ask, are the clergy of the Church of England more zealous or laborious than dissenting ministers? Are they more beloved by their hearers? Do they study more closely the Word of God? No hon. Member will venture to answer those questions in the affirmative; nor shall I be told that dissenters are worse members of society than churchmen. What advantage, then, do we gain, by this pompous and costly Establishment, and upon what ground will you contend for the necessity or expediency of its continuance? I will now trouble the House with a few more extracts from the writings of some of the Divines of the Established Church, and then proceed to the second general proposition contained in my Resolution. First, let us hear what Archbishop Newcome says, when speaking of Ireland: "Great numbers of country parishes are without churches, notwithstanding the largeness and frequency of parliamentary grants for building them; but meetinghouses, and Romish chapels, which are built and repaired with greater zeal, are in sufficient numbers about the country." Paley says, "I do not know that it is in any degree true that the influence of religion is the greatest where there are the fewest dissenters." Duncan, in his Travels in America, says, "It has often been said, that the disinclination of the heart to religious truth renders a State Establishment necessary for the purpose of christianizing a country. Ireland and America can furnish abundant evidence of the fallacy of such an hypothesis. In the one country we see an ecclesiastical establishment of the most costly description utterly inoperative in dispelling ignorance or refuting error; in the other, no establishment of any kind, and yet religion making daily and hourly progress, promoting inquiry, diffusing knowledge, strengthening the weak, and mollifying the hardened." Dr. Henry Moore, speaking of the Reformed Churches, says, "They have separated from the great Babylon to build those which are less and more tolerable, but yet not to be tolerated for ever." Bishop Burnet says, "I have always had a true zeal for the Church of England; yet I must say there are many things in it that have been very uneasy to me." Simpson says, "Our confirmations, and I may add, even our ordination for the sacred ministry, are dwindling into painful and disgusting ceremonies." And again, "Who is to blame for the spread of infidelity. The Bishops and clergy of the land more than any other people in it. We, as a body of men, are almost solely and exclusively culpable." Bishop Laving-ton, speaking of moral preaching, says, "We have long been attempting the reformation of the nation by discourses of this kind. With what success? None at all. On the contrary, we have dexterously preached the people into downright infidelity." Hartley says, "It is evident that the worldly-mindedness and neglect of the clergy is a great scandal to religion and cause of infidelity." There, let those who attach no importance to what I have said, answer these men, if they can, touching the practical utility of our miscalled religious Establishment. And now I have to request the attention of the House to my second general proposition—namely, "That the revenues of the Church have always been subject to legislative enactments." That every national establishment must be at the disposal of the nation is a self-evident proposition; and why a distinction should be made between the Church and the Bank, I for one am at a loss to imagine. The right of the Legislature to dispose of the revenues of the Church, is as indisputable as its right to take away or alter the Bank Charter. But what do hon. Members mean by the Church? They talk about the Church and the sacredness of Church property with a great deal of fluency, seeming at the same time to take for granted that Church and parsons are synonymous terms; or, in other words, by the Church they mean the clergy. That, however, is a gross error; and if they wish to have a definition of the term "Church," let them look into their articles of religion, and they will find that the parsons do not constitute the Church, but that it consists of a congregation of faithful men, the clergy being mere office bearers or servants therein. The people make up the Church; its property is the property of the people; and they have an undoubted right to dispose of it at their discretion. But has not the Legislature always acted upon this principle? And here the House will allow me to bring to its re- collection what took place at the time of the Protestant Reformation. By the 27th of Henry 8th, all monasteries which had not above 200l. a-year in lands, tenements, rents, tithes, &c. were given to the king, that he might give, grant, and dispose of them to the honour of God and the wealth of the realm. Thus the King held those monasteries, not for his own benefit or the enriching of his sycophantic courtiers, but in trust for the people at large; and doubtless it would be entertaining and useful to trace the progress of this property into the hands of its present owners. That, however, may amuse us at a future time, when I imagine it will be found that many of our aristocratic families are greatly indebted to this plundering and wife-killing King. Then, again, by the 31st of Henry 8th, all the remaining monasteries were given to the King, his heirs and successors for ever; while, by the 37th of the same reign and the 1st of Edward 6th, all the possessions of colleges, free chapels, chantries, and hospitals, were vested in the Crown. Thus the whole of the revenues of the Church were swept off' by Acts of Parliament; and is there a man to be found who would expose himself to the ridicule and contempt of the world by asserting that those revenues are not now at the disposal of the Legislature? What was the subject of legislation with one generation must remain the same with all succeeding generations; and if I were to be asked what is the worst title under which a man can hold, my answer would be, "An act of Parliament;" and for this obvious reason: every Act is liable to be repealed. And now let us see what has been done with the revenues of the Church since the Re-formation. By the 3rd of William and Mary five shillings an acre was substituted for tithes in kind of hemp and flax. By the 2nd and 3rd Edward 6th, all barren heaths and waste grounds were exempted from tithes of corn and hay for seven years after their conversion into arable or meadow land. By the 40th of George 3rd it was enacted that no suit should be entertained for the tithe of agistment for dry or barren cattle, except where such tithe had been usually paid within the last ten years; and the 57th of George 3rd, provides that the stipends of curates shall be in proportion to the population and value of benefices. And here, let me ask, has the Legislature ever attempted to regulate the salaries of stewards or bailiffs? It has however regulated the stipends of curates; and why, but because the latter were servants of the public, and the revenues of the Church were at the disposal of the people. But the Legislature has thought proper to increase the emoluments of the clergy; for to the eternal disgrace of a former Parliament during the reign of George 3rd, a sum of one million six hundred thousand pounds was granted for the augmentation of small livings. Oh! 'tis a delightful thing to get hold of the public purse! Now, at the time this grant was made, we had Bishops in the possession of twenty or thirty thousand a year; and if nothing else be done, I think this sum must be returned. But the clergy are under great personal restraints from which other men are free. By the 13th of Elizabeth, if is enacted that if an incumbent be absent above eight days in a-year, he shall lose one year's profit of his benefice, to be distributed among the poor. Have landlords been thus restrained? What would the noble Lord (Lord Althorp) say, if I were to move for leave to bring in a bill to confine him to his country residence under a similar penalty? But if the revenues of the Church be private property, or the clergy anything more than the servants of the public, this is the most tyrannical act that was ever passed, and ought to be torn out of the Statute Book. Several other Acts, with which I will not trouble the House, have since been passed, relating to the residence of the clergy. Again, it is worthy of remark that clerical benefices cannot be alienated; and his Majesty's law-officers are aware that every disposition of a living by rent-charge, annuity, or otherwise, is absolutely void. I do not say, indeed, that the parson would not be liable upon his covenant to repay the money lent; but I do assert, without fear of contradiction, that the grant itself would be void. What, then, becomes of the doctrine of private property? To me it is a matter of astonishment how some honourable members can talk as they do about legal rights and vested interests. To be sure, a tenant for life cannot sell or charge the remainder or reversion; but he can, at his own discretion, sell or charge his life-estate. Not so, however, the parson. He is incapable of charging his living to any extent; and I hope we shall hear no more of their legal claim. Let the ground of right be abandoned, and if any position at all be taken, let it be that of expediency alone. Once more I assert that the emoluments of livings are mere stipendiary payments, precisely the same as the salary of an exciseman or of a custom-house officer: and for this assertion I have the sanction of the Judges, it having been decided that the profits of a living did not pass to the assignees of an insolvent parson, but that his case was analogous to that of a half-pay officer. Thus a clergyman may get into debt, go to jail, cheat his creditors, get discharged and enjoy the emoluments of his living after all; and this, to be sure, is perfectly compatible with Christianity. I ask, then, have not the revenues of the Church been always subjected to Legislative enactments? Have not those revenues been increased by the legislature? Are not the clergy under personal restraints from which other men are free? Are they not restrained from alienating their benefices? And are not the emoluments of a living mere stipendiary payments? No man will deny these facts. I come now to the last proposition contained in the resolution which I shall have the honour to submit to the House; which is, that the greater part, if not the whole, of the revenues of the Church, ought to be appropriated to the relief of the nation. I say the greater part, because there may be some doubt as to whether the clergy were not at one time entitled to one third of those revenues; but I do not think, that, under existing circumstances, the benefit of that doubt would be great. And here let me ask hon. Members what the state of affairs was before the Protestant Reformation? By the canons of Elfric, it appears that—" the holy fathers had decreed that tithes should be paid into God's Church, and that the priests should divide them into three parts; one for the reparation of the Church a second for the poor, and a third for God's servants who attended the Church." Now, if further information be required on this point, I beg to refer the House to Archbishop Egbert's Excerptions, 15th Richard 2nd, and the 4th of Henry 4th. And the fact, that all the revenues of the Church were derived from our Catholic ancestors is by no means unworthy of attention. That the whole of these revenues were ever intended for the purpose of affording religious instruction, I positively deny and challenge contradiction; while it is clear that such part of them as was to be applied to that purpose was given to promulgate doctrines and to inculcate a faith from which our Church now dissents, and which the clergy declare to be damnable. I ask, then, would they like to account for by-gone rents and profits, and to hand them over to the popish priesthood? Probably they have no inclination to do that. Let them acknowledge, then, that they are indebted to Acts of Parliament for their present possessions; and with that acknowledgment let an admission be made that the Legislature has as great a right to dispossess them as a bloody-minded King and his rapacious courtiers had to dispossess the Catholics of old. But there are other and perhaps more substantial reasons for appropriating the revenues of the Church to the relief of the nation. It is a decidedly Antichristian institution—an institution which I believe to be no less an abomination to God than it is injurious to man. From our very infancy, we, as Protestants, were taught to rail against the Church of Rome, and to regard it as "Babylon the great, the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth." That may be all true enough; but if the Romish Church be a "mother of harlots," it is natural to suppose that she is not childless. Where, then are her daughters? To hunt them all out is a task which I am not disposed to undertake: but, in pointing to the Establishment of this country, I present to the notice of the House a harlot having all the features of her apostate and adulterous mother. When some men talk of religion and a Christian Church, they seem to forget that there is such a thing as the New Testament. To that I refer honourable Members, and ask them, whether they find therein anything bearing the least resemblance to our religious Establishment. Christ was not rich; the Apostles did not fare sumptuously every day; they did not ride in splendid carriages; they took no part in legislative affairs, neither did they "eat the fat and clothe themselves with the wool of the flock;" but, on the contrary, they fed that flock with spiritual food, working with their own hands in order to supply their own bodily wants. Not so, however, the clergy of our Established Church. It is true they caution us against the pomps and vanities of this wicked world. They tell us that the love of money is the root of all evil—that those who will be rich fall into divers snares and temptations which drown men in perdition; and that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven; and then again they declare that they are moved by the Holy Ghost to take the cure of souls. Now, all this is very proper; but, unfortunately, they appear to contradict in practice what they profess in principle. They make a pompous and vain show, and take especial care of that which they declare to be a deadly evil; while as to the motions of the Holy Ghost in taking the cure of souls, they sometimes leave those souls to the cure of a half-starved curate, and move off to Paris, Rome, or some other place of fashionable resort, where they consume in indolence a great portion of the substance of their flocks. Now, I am disposed to take them at their word, to ease them of a little of that which they say, and which I believe, is pernicious to their souls, leaving them to the full benefit and enjoyment of their religion, to which I am sure there can be no reasonable objection on their part. But I have heard several hon. Members talk about respectability, and contend for the necessity of maintaining that of the clergy. I quite agree with them in point of terms; and yet there seems to be a substantial difference between us, for it is evident that by respectability they mean large parcels of money. Now I do not think that wealth has much, if anything, to do with respectability. A man may be a rich fool, or a rich rogue; while experience is sufficient to convince us that respectability is by no means incompatible with poverty. At any rate, our Saviour was not rich, neither were his Apostles; and yet who will venture to say that they were not respectable? If, indeed, it be necessary for a minister of religion to be in affluent circumstances in order to render him respectable, then we must cease to reverence the first teachers of Christianity; but God forbid we should do that. But this Establishment has been a great national evil. What have the clergy done? Why, instead of applying to their own purposes only one-third of the tithes, they have grasped the whole, and thrown the burthen of the poor and the expenses of the churches on the people. Had they been less avaricious and more benevolent, there might not have been much cause for complaint. The evil, however, does not stop there. That the nation is in distress is admitted. Now, distress is the bitter fruit of taxation. Taxation is the consequence of wicked and disastrous wars. The clergy were the most strenuous advocates for those wars; and they have invariably supported tyranny and corruption. Was that the course which their sacred office prescribed? Was it compatible with the religion they professed to teach? If instead of striking hands with the corrupt governments of the day, they had stood up in opposition to them, Pitt and his associates could never have plundered and enslaved the people as they did. When, I ask, did the Bishops and Clergy ever defend the rights and liberties of the people? Will the noble Lord (Althorp) tell me that they advocated the Reform Bill? To that they rendered all the opposition in their power. If they could, they would have crushed it in the bud; and sure am I that they have since strained every nerve to prevent the people from enjoying the fruits of that measure. They are bitter enemies to freedom. What is it that Ministers intend to do? That the distress of the nation is great, none will deny, although I am aware that the noble Lord (Althorp) is not disposed to admit the existence of the evil to that extent to which I believe it to exist. I affirm, however, that tradesmen, manufacturers, farmers, labourers, in short—nearly all those who do not live on an abominable taxing and tithing system—are on the brink of ruin, and that something must be done. What then will you do? Are Ministers prepared to sponge out the national debt? No, they will not do that. Will they put down the array, reduce the navy, break up some of their establishments, curtail salaries, and lop off sinecures and unmerited pensions? No, they will not do that either. To talk of relieving the people from taxation, without doing all or some of these things, is sheer nonsense; and I will never unite with those hon. Members, who, though they are not prepared to break up any of our establishments, are continually harping upon a reduction of taxation. The thing is impracticable. If you will have a large standing army, pay the interest of the debt, and let the parsons pocket the revenues of the Church, it is folly, if not hypocrisy, to talk of relieving the people. Relieved, however, they must be, and that speedily, or a convulsion will ensue; and however sanguine the noble Lord and his right hon. Colleagues may be,—however lightly they may think of the condition of the people,—and whatever reliance they may place on that power which they possess, I am confident that they will be unable to keep the present system together much longer; but if, in the exercise of a sound discretion, they will do justice to a suffering people, by properly appropriating the revenues of the Established Church and all other public property, then relief may be afforded, and the nation rendered more prosperous and powerful than at any former period. It is my humble opinion, therefore, that the greater part, if not the whole, of the revenues of the Church ought to be applied to the relief of the nation, because the Establishment is not recommended by practical utility; because its revenues have always been subject to legislative enactments; because the Clergy were never entitled to more than one-third of the tithes; and because this is the most equitable, if not the only way of preventing anarchy, by stopping the progress of distress. And now, however much the House may differ from me in opinion, hon. Members will, I trust, give me credit for sincerity. I assure them I have spoken conscientiously, and been actuated by a sense of duty; and whatever may be its present fate, I cannot refrain from submitting the following Resolution:—" That the Church of England, as by law established, is not recommended by practical utility; that its revenues have always been subject to legislative enactments; and that the greater part, if not the whole, of those revenues, ought to be appropriated to the relief of the nation."

said, that the House, he was sure, would not expect him to answer the speech of the hon. member for Brighton. He would only observe, that the hon. Member had stated that he was a Dissenter; and he must say, that he was a member of the Church of England. The question, therefore, as to whether that Church were. good or not was one on which they might very properly differ. The hon. Member said his Motion was most important. In that he could not agree with the hon. Member, for he could not conceive that it possessed any prac- tical utility. He would not detain the House by going into a discussion of a polemical question which might be suitable for another place; but it was a question into which it was not fit for him to enter there. He should only say, that he would meet the Motion with a decided negative.

The noble Lord said, the House hardly expected him to answer the speech of the hon. member for Brighton. No, nor did I either.

acknowledged, that he too was a Dissenter and a Non-Conformist; but, though he was prepared to support the abstract proposition made by the hon. Member, he could not agree to all its terms. The hon. Member had rather prejudiced the question, by directing his arguments to the abuses of the Church, instead of limiting himself to establishing the great principle of religious liberty, and the injustice of compelling Dissenters to support an Established Church; which, being at variance with all spiritual freedom, was a fair and open subject of investigation. The hon. Member had rather dwelt on the administration of the Church, than upheld the great principle of toleration. He could not say, that the Church was altogether opposed to practical utility, for that would imply that it had been of no utility at all times, to which he could not agree. He should like to have the principle of exonerating the Dissenters from paying to the Church brought under discussion; and he had hoped that the noble Lord would, at least, even on this occasion, have acknowledged the principle that the Dissenters ought not to pay to the Established Church. He subscribed to the latter part of the proposition, but not to the former; and he trusted the hon. Mover would withdraw the Motion, as to negative it might place the non-conformists in an improper light.

would express his utter dissent from all the words of the proposition of the hon. Mover. He would make only one observation on the system of sermon and speech of the hon. Member. The hon. Member admitted, that he was a Dissenter, and he attacked those who in that House could not appear to defend themselves. He attacked them on account of their temporalities, and he attacked them also on their spiritual practices and motives. The hon. Member was, he believed, not only a Dissenter, but a licensed preacher among that body, or he had been; and it was hardly fair in him to attack the Ministers of the Church of England as to their motives and conduct, when they could not come into that House to defend themselves. He felt, that the House had expressed its opinion so decidedly, that it was unnecessary for him to trespass on its time.

was friendly to the latter part of the proposition, but not to the first part of it, and had no other course but to oppose it.

proposed an Amendment to this effect:—" That the Revenues of the Church of England have always been subject to legislative enactments, and they ought to be appropriated to their original institution."

objected to the Amendment, as implying something to which no Protestant Dissenter could agree. He could not allow those revenues to be appropriated as they were originally.

said, they were too late, for not one "Aye" had been uttered when he put the question.

wished to know whether the parties were to be exposed to all the expense of the Grenville Act, as that would be a bar to justice in many places in England, and particularly in Ireland? Did the noble Lord mean to impose any oaths respecting bribery on the Members of that House?

was understood to reply, that when petitions were frivolous and vexatious, the parties presenting them would be saddled with the costs; when they were otherwise, the expense would be defrayed in the same manner as the expense of other Parliamentary Committees. With respect to the question of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, he never contemplated imposing upon the Members of that House such an oath as had been mentioned; it might be very well to require an elector to declare upon oath whether he had or had not been bribed, because that was a matter of fact to which he could at once speak; but not so with a Member of Parliament, for at an election many acts might be done, of which he, probably, would be more or less cognizant, but they might not appear to his mind to amount to bribery; and, therefore, in calling upon a Member to take such an oath, it was requiring him to swear to a matter of opinion, and not of fact.

Sir, the subject matter of the Motion which it becomes my duty to bring before the House, in obedience to the wishes and instructions of a considerable and respectable portion of my constituents, is certainly one which at all times demands, and has indeed at all times commanded, the most serious attention and jealous vigilance of this House, involving, as it does, the all important considerations of freedom of election, the rights and privileges of the people, and the dignity and character of this House, which must needs rise in the estimation and confidence of the people in proportion as it is felt to be the free emanation of their choice. The petition, Sir, which I hold in my hand, contains the complaint that forms the ground of my Motion, and charges the Irish Government with unduly interfering and exercising their influence during the last election for the city of Limerick against, not my return, but that of my hon. colleague Mr. David Roche, who is not now in his place, being at present in Limerick. But, Sir, as I have no wish to portray this complaint with the slightest shade of higher colouring than the allegations contained in the petition call upon one to do, I think my better way will be to read those charges from the petition itself; but before I do so, allow me to explain why it has not been earlier brought under the notice of this House. Sir, the petition has been in my hands for some weeks, and the delay of acting upon it arose from the following circumstances. Perceiving when I received it, that it contained such grave charges against the Irish Government, I conceived that justice and courtesy alike called upon me to apprize the then right hon. Secretary for Ireland of its object, and, in order to enable him to inquire into the matter and be prepared to defend the conduct of his Government. He did accordingly write over to Ireland, and obtained an answer from one of the gentlemen, Mr. Yokes (Chief Magistrate of police in the city of Limerick, and stated to be an agent in conveying the desire of Government on this occasion) denying that he, Mr. Vokes, used any such influence on the part of Government, or was at all authorized to use it. This reply the then right hon. Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Stanley) communicated to me, and I transmitted it to my constituents, the petitioners, on which they held a meeting and adopted the following Resolution—' Resolved, that the reply of Mr. Stanley to our respected Representative (Mr. William Roche) in reference to the complaint of undue interference with the freedom of election, contained in a petition from 146 electors of this city, is unsatisfactory, inasmuch as it contains but the denial of one of the parties implicated, and leaves undisturbed the facts which, as the petition alleges, can be sustained by irrefutable testimony. That therefore, we call upon both our Representatives to demand, with that uncompromising energy by which their parliamentary career is already distinguished, that thorough investigation which the petition claims, and the future freedom of election requires.' Sir, this "Resolution" necessarily left me no alternative but to bring the matter before the House, and as the petitioners demanded only investigation, as the case is one of such general importance, and as the petitioners say they can substantiate the charge by irrefutable evidence; I conceive that their prayer ought to be granted. I have no personal feeling on the subject, and am acting solely in obedience to the duty I owe my constituents and the public in moving "That the petition be referred to a Select Committee, to consider the matter thereof, and to report their observations thereupon to the House."

contended, that the hon. Member opposite had laid no sufficient grounds for the appointment of a Committee, and he should certainly resist the Motion; for the appointment of such a Committee would amount to pronouncing a sentence of condemnation upon the conduct of the Irish Government. The hon. Member had said, that he made a sufficient case by merely presenting a petition from certain individuals, who were no doubt respectable; but that fact did not constitute evidence sufficient to substantiate all their statements. He did not say, that the hon. Member had acted improperly but he had not brought forward sufficient evidence to support his proposition.

said, that the case for the Motion was, that Major Yokes had interfered most improperly with the Limerick election, and that Mr. Kenney had done the same. To that, he contended, the right hon. Baronet had given no answer.

affirmed that the conduct of the Irish Government had been perfectly impartial during the whole of the election; and read two letters, one from Major Yokes, and the other from Mr. Kenney, in which both gentlemen denied the interference imputed to them.

said, that the number of names of persons, for a list of which, with the salaries attached to their offices, &c., the hon. Member now moved, amounted to no less than 525. He just stated that fact, to show the enormous trouble that would be occasioned in making out this return. He should like to know, therefore, from the hon. Member, what object he had in view in moving for such a return. As yet the hon. Member had mentioned no grounds for this Motion, to which he (Lord Althorp) should certainly object, unless good parliamentary grounds were established for complying with it.

said, in the first place, with regard to the enormous trouble which the noble Lord asserted the taking out of this return would occasion, that he (Mr. Cobbett) had one clerk, and that he would most undoubtedly discharge him on Saturday night unless he would in the space of twenty-four hours make out such a list as that of those 525 persons, with the salaries attached to their offices. What he (Mr. Cobbett) wanted to ascertain by this return was, who the persons were who pocketed a quarter of a million of money out of the collection of the stamps. He had a motion for the 26th instant relative to the Stamp duties, upon which occasion he would prove clearly to the House that those who should not pay those taxes—namely, the poor of the country—did pay them; that the rich, who ought to pay them, did not pay them; and his object in moving for this return was to prove that the rich actually received them. If the noble Lord should refuse him this return, which he did not ask as a favour from him, he (Mr. Cobbett), when he brought forward his Motion, would be obliged to proceed upon presumption, as the facts were withheld from him.

had never supposed that this return was asked as a favour. What he said was, that good parliamentary grounds should be laid for such a Motion, and he did not think that the hon. Member had stated such grounds. If the hon. Member had stated that there were more persons employed in those departments than there ought to be, or that improper persons were employed in them, such would be good grounds for granting the return; but he had not made any such statement.

contended, that sufficient grounds had been stated for granting the Motion. The mere fact that a quarter of a million of money was spent upon this department was sufficient to induce the House to call for such a return.

begged to correct the hon. and learned member for Dublin. So far from this department costing half a million, or a quarter of a million, the whole of the salaries of the persons employed in it amounted only to 140,383l.

, pursuant to the notice which he had given last night, moved for leave to bring in a Bill to enable persons to purchase small annuities through the means of the Savings' Banks, and to consolidate and amend the laws relative to savings' banks. The noble Lord said, that the object of the measure was to place it in the power of the labouring classes to purchase such annuities. The House was aware that the lowest sum which could be granted at present as a Government annuity was 30l. a-year. It was proposed by this measure to enable persons, through the means of the savings' banks, to purchase Government annuities so low as 20l. a-year. He did not apprehend that any danger of loss would arise to the parties paying the instalments, in consequence of the cessation of the payment of them; for it was provided by the Bill, when parties, either from necessity or choice, discontinued the payment of the instalments, they should receive back all the money which they had lodged in the savings' bank, without interest, however, which circumstance would distinguish such payment from the other monies paid into those establishments. It was proposed by this Bill, taking a person between the ages of twenty and thirty, that he should pay 6s. a month into the savings' bank as an instalment, and, on arriving at the age of sixty, be entitled to an annuity of 20l. a-year. From calculations which had been made it appeared that the Government would lose nothing by this arrangement, and it was one that might be attended with much advantage to the industrious classes. There were two clauses in this Bill also for amending the law regarding savings' banks—one was, to make it necessary to give a longer notice before money was drawn out than was required at present; and the other was, that if an individual should draw out all the money he had deposited, he could not re-invest it except as a new deposit.

said, that he believed the Government was at this moment paying 60,000l. a-year out of the national purse for the maintenance of those establishments—a sum which they had cost the country for many years, and the aggregate of which exceeded all the money that had been lost by 1l. notes since the world began, and all that had been lost by the failure of country banks during the last ten years. These establishments, which had cost so much, instead of an advantage, were a nuisance. The original intention in instituting savings' banks was, that small sums should be deposited in them. They had a savings' bank in Birmingham, the amount of the deposits in which at present was 60,000l.; and in looking over the accounts the other day he found that 50,000l. of that consisted of deposits of sums of 20l. and upwards. Now he never knew a country bank in his life that would refuse to take deposits of that amount, and give interest upon them. Savings' banks were a sort of screw in the hands of the Government to fix down the working classes to its system.

did not agree with the hon. member for Birmingham, and conceived that savings' banks had been productive of great national advantage, by enabling the labouring classes to save their money.

said, that without wishing to disparage country banks, he could not help remarking, that when he knew, during his own experience, that the small county which he represented had been a loser to the extent of 600,000l. or 700,000l. by country banks, he thought it would be a bad principle to have the poor lodging their savings in them. The accounts of the savings* banks should be annually laid before the Government, for it was most necessary to maintain a superintending control over them.

said, that the accounts of all the savings' banks were annually laid before Government; and where any bank neglected to do so, the Commissioners exercised the power (one or two instances of which had occurred since he came into office) of closing such bank till its accounts were sent up.