did not think on any other occasion he had ever risen with so much anxiety as that with which he now presented himself to the notice of the House, as in undertaking the responsibility of defending the characters of so many brave and gallant officers he must naturally feel his own incompetence as their advocate; but as their cause had truth and justice on its side, be confidently relied on the sympathy of the House in the course he proposed to pursue. He should, therefore, at once state, that the object, of moving for certain returns relating to the slave trade, was to relieve the officers and seamen employed on the coast of Africa from the charge which had been made, of their having allowed sordid feelings and pecuniary motives to interfere with the discharge of their public and professional duties. And for this purpose he would confine his observations within those limits, and he would show that the officers and seamen had not merited the censure cast upon them; but on the contrary, that they had deserved well of their country. The right hon. Baronet opposite, now Member for Pembroke, appeared, by the shake of his head, to disapprove of what had just been said. He should have imagined that a late First Lord of the Admiralty would have felt inclined to have supported the character of the Naval Officers when they had been so cruelly attacked.

intimated, that he had not meant to express any dissent.

said, the bare suspicion of an inclination of the head of a late First Lord of the Admiralty was an awful circumstance—as the conduct of many, officers serving during the right hon. Baronet's administration was now in question. The charge then complained of was, that in the suppression of the slave trade the Commanders of her Majesty's ships, with a view to their pecuniary interests, by their thirst for blood money, have permitted vessels to take in their cargoes of slaves instead of using their best endeavours to capture them before they entered the rivers on the coast of Africa,—in plain English, that her Majesty's ships had permitted the empty vessels to pass by unmolested, that they might afterwards bag them as a richer and fatter prize when returning loaded with slaves. This was a charge which the British Navy would not submit to, and which they threw back with indignation, and which he now repelled in as strong language as the usage of Parliament would permit,—the more so, as a cruel charge was wholly unnecessary to substantiate the case the noble and learned Lord desired to prove as to the necessity for suppressing that infamous and cruel traffic which all parties were so desirous to put down. The navy, therefore, consider the charge as a gratuitous insult; and though the noble Lord who presides at the head of naval affairs has most kindly and honourably vindicated the character of the profession in another place, yet it is desired that some expression of this House should be manifested in favour of those who feel they have been so cruelly treated. It will therefore be necessary to explain the circumstances under which the cruisers are placed on the coast of Africa, and to remind the House that until January 1836, when the last treaty with Spain reached that part of the world, no vessel under the Spanish flag (although in every way equipped and provisioned) could be detained lawfully unless slaves were actually on board—and that no vessel with the flag of Portugal (even at this moment), could be detained unless tinder similar circumstances; consequently the difficulty is great, and the cruisers are baffled in every way by the extreme facility afforded at the Isles of St. Thomas and Cape de Verd, of changing the flags of Spain and the United States to that of Portugal. This could be effected for the small sum of 100 dollars. Therefore it is to be understood that only vessels bearing the Spanish flag can now be seized legally, although there may be clear proof of their being engaged in the traffic. For this want of jurisdiction, for this non-fulfilment of stipulations and treaties by foreign powers, have those brave officers been denounced by the gigantic force and the steam-frigate power of eloquence of the noble and eminent philanthropist, wholly setting aside their sufferings and privations by constant exposure in that horrid and pestilential climate. The commanders of the cruisers, under all their difficulties of want of jurisdiction, had exerted themselves in the discharge of their duty to the utmost, and had shewn by their zeal in putting down the slave traffic that they had frequently been put to great risk and expenses by detaining vessels that had all the usual articles on board for the reception of slaves, but which the mixed Courts at Havannah and Sierra Leone could not condemn for want of power under the several treaties with Spain and Portugal. From documents which he held in his hand, he would prove, that in the first six months of the promulgation of the equipment treaty, twenty vessels were condemned at Sierra Leone, seven of which only had slaves on board, and thirteen were what was termed empty. This would at once shew that the cruisers had not permitted the outward-bound slave vessels to pass by unmolested that they might be afterwards taken on their homeward voyage with a full cargo of slaves. For these empty vessels the captors did not receive one farthing, the proceeds being paid into court, and the moiety was transferred to the authorities of the nation to which the condemned vessel belonged. In such cases the commanders of her Majesty's ships were liable to expenses, as the prizes sometimes remained six months for trial. In the case of slaves being on board, by Act of Parliament the captors were entitled to 5l. per head; out of this sum one-eighth went to Greenwich Hospital, one-sixteenth to the flag officer in command, and agency expenses of condemnation and fees paid at the Treasury,—aye, fees at the Treasury. And here he would call upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer to remove such charges, and also to bring in a bill, or by order in council, to carry out the spirit of the treaties, by giving bounties to captors for the broken-up hulls and cargoes of the empty vessels taken under the equipment article. To prove further the zealous services of the cruizers, he could state, that the Charybdis, commanded by the gallant officer Lieut. Mercer, had, from January, 1836 to 1837, taken six vessels that were empty, and one with 449 slaves on board; and he trusted that the Board of Admiralty would mark their approval of that officer's conduct, by giving him the promotion he had so well earned. This officer had been eleven years on the coast of Africa, and was the only survivor of one of the surveying and exploring expeditions, and had completely lost his health. The Trinculo, captain Puget, had also been most active, and that officer had risked much by sending his boats to attack four armed vessels in the river Bonny, who were waiting for their cargoes of slaves; these vessels were cut out after a severe fight, when lieut. Tyron was taken prisoner and stripped naked by the Spaniards and blacks; and what will the House think would be the amount of prize-money to recompense the captors on such an occasion?—Why, the sum of 49l. 5s. 4d. was the actual moiety of the proceeds of these four broken-up vessels which the British Government shared with that of Spain, and which sum the Treasury have not yet provided for the captors. He could state many cases where the greatest, gallantry had been shown in action against very superior forces on the coast of Africa, and which, if it had taken place during the time of war, would have sounded well in the Gazette; and it was due to the officers and seamen of H.M.S. Fair Rosamond and others, to state their heroic conduct. The noble Lord at the head of the Admiralty has shewn, that since Jan. 1836, when the Spanish treaty came into operation, thirty vessels had been taken, nineteen of which had been empty, thus showing that the naval officers had not been actuated by those motives which had been imputed to them, and that, at any rate, their thirst for what the noble Lord had termed "blood-money" had not prevented them from doing their duty in capturing vessels only equipped for the transport of slaves. He had much desired that the charges made by the noble Lord on the 29th of January should have been either qualified or removed; but, to his great surprise, on a subsequent occasion, viz., on the 20th of February, these charges were not only repeated, but, in his opinion, and in that of all his brother officers, they were most materially aggravated, and he would read to the House the passages in question, which by implication, was sufficient to give the greatest offence to the profession to which he had the honour to belong. It was in these words:—

"The zeal of naval officers for the service had been much spoken of; these was a saying of Lord Thurlow, 'Far be it from me to utter anything against an officer in the public employ, either civil or military, for it will lay me open to hear his panegyric; no sooner was it said, that money was not without its charms, that the love of prize-money was kindred to the heart, than forth came a splendid panegyric on the exemplary character of the officers, that they were actuated only by noble feeling, that money had no power and no influence, and that nothing moved them but a sense of public duty; and the man who thought otherwise was designated as degraded and ignorant, and stupified, and had no knowledge of naval officers and naval duties."

Now he would leave it to the House to say, if the naval profession had not cause to complain. The insinuations were intelligible, and certainly no mistake, and, on the part of the navy, he repelled them; and feeling strongly on this occasion the great provocation the service had received, he could do no other than use the very words (by way of retort) which were applied to cast a slur upon the officers of her Majesty's cruisers. How dare any man accuse British officers of being fond of blood-money? How dare any man, without offering any proof whatever, to utter so slanderous and false an imputation? The navy had a just right to complain of these accusations, and also to expect this night a disavowal of such sentiments; and those hon. Members sitting below, who composed the Board of Admiralty, would undoubtedly seize the present opportunity, and thank him for having given them this occasion to pronounce their full and unqualified approbation of the faithful and honourable conduct of the officers, and their gallant services on the coast of Africa. The gallant Member concluded by moving for a return of all vessels captured under the late Spanish treaty by her Majesty's ships since Feb. 1836, distinguishing whether having slaves on board, or under the equipment article, to the latest date for which the same can be prepared, and stating the name of the vessel by which each was captured.

, in seconding the motion, expressed his concurrence in what had fallen from the hon. and gallant officer in reference to what he considered a most uncalled-for and unjustifiable charge on the part of a certain noble Lord. He was, however, of the same opinion which he had last year expressed on this subject—namely, that they could not effectually put a stop to the slave trade until they constituted it an act of piracy, and resolved upon hanging at the yard-arm the commander of every slave trade vessel they could capture.

regretted that any person in such a high station as the noble Lord who had attacked the naval officers elsewhere should indulge in such unjust and unfounded accusations. Some persons, however, were so much given to vituperation that they hardly knew or cared whom they attacked.

had no objection to the return moved for by his gallant Friend. He was satisfied that there was not the slightest foundation for the attack that had been made elsewhere on the naval officers employed on the western coast of Africa. He was convinced that no officers of the navy could have been guilty of such disgraceful conduct as had been imputed to them. The statement that had been made elsewhere was altogether unwaranted by the facts of the case. Before the treaty with Spain, no officer could seize a vessel engaged in the slave trade unless it had slaves on board, and if they did so, they exposed themselves to the risk of heavy penalties. Under the treaty, however, vessels equipped in a particular manner were liable to seizure. He should feel the greatest pleasure in giving the return moved for, as it would show that the naval officers had manifested the greatest exertions to suppress the Spanish slave trade, and that those exertions had almost entirely put a stop to the infamous traffic under that flag. He had thought it only a matter of duty to bear testimony to the gallant conduct of the officers employed in seizing slave vessels on the pestilential coast of Africa.

said, that he also felt himself bound to bear testimony to the statement of his hon. Friend, the Secretary for the Admiralty, as to the gallantry and zeal of the naval officers employed in the suppression of the slave trade on the coast of Africa.

observed, that a more unwarrantable attack had never been made at any place or time, on any body of men, than that which had been made elsewhere a few nights ago on the naval officers employed on the coast of Africa; and he deeply regretted that such an unguarded attack had come from such a high quarter. Nothing could exceed the gallantry, zeal, and disinterestedness, of the officers employed on the coast of Africa, in the suppression of the slave trade, and he trusted they would be rewarded as they deserved.

, in reply, stated his sincere satisfaction at the manner in which the members of the Board of Admiralty had expressed their sentiments, and which would not fail of being most gratifying to the whole of the naval service. It would be very cheering to many of those whose relatives and connexions were now suffering on the pestilential coast of Africa. He held in his hand several letters of complaint from the widow, the wife, and the orphan of those who had fought and bled in the service. The honour of these officers was dear to them; many of them had no aristocratic influence to back them up; they had only their character, and the record of the number of captures, be they empty or be they loaded, to recommend them to the Admiralty for promotion; and it was hard upon them to have any censure cast upon them, and to have their claims disputed and set aside.

rose to move for a return of the number of union workhouses in England and Wales, used for the reception of parochial poor, since the passing of the new Poor-law Bill, specifying the parishes in which they are severally situate, and the number of parochial poor received into each; also the return of deaths which had taken place in each of such houses, specifying their ages and the causes of their decease. His object in moving for this return was, to direct the attention of the House to the mode of visiting workhouses, and to the dietary allowed in them. He was satisfied that the diet allowed in them was not sufficient for the support of an able-bodied labourer. During the severity of the winter, many labouring men who were unable to obtain employment, were compelled to take refuge in the union workhouses, but the diet was of such a low nature that they would be so much reduced that they would be unable to perform severe work when they came out of those places. This he knew to have been the case from what had occurred at Wallingford. Poor men had been driven into the workhouses from no fault of their own, and they there had only a sufficiency of food to maintain animal life. He was convinced that the low diet allowed in the workhouses, was likely to have the most prejudicial effect, as poor persons would rather plunder the property of their neighbours than be sent to the workhouses; as they knew that if they were sent to prison for theft they would have a better diet than in the workhouse. He was satisfied that the low dietary allowed in those places had already had the effect of increasing the amount of crime, as the returns at the assizes and the quarter sessions would show. He thought that the guardians of the poor should, under certain circumstances, have the power of increasing or altering the diet in the workhouses, as it was impossible that the commissioners could form so accurate a judgment in any case as those who were connected with the union. He trusted that before the end of the Session some hon. Gentleman would bring forward some short bill to allow the guardians of the poor to increase the diet in the workhouses in certain cases, provided in the mean time the Government did not take the matter up.

would suggest to the hon. Member the propriety of making his return more comprehensive, as from the returns moved for, he would not be able to arrive at any conclusions. He would recommend him to add to his motion a return of the number of persons admitted at different periods into the workhouse, the periods of their continuing there, and also the number that had gone out in different periods.

wished to direct the attention of the House and of the noble Lord for the Home Department to a case that had appeared in the newspapers, which was a lamentable instance of the pernicious working of the Poor-law Act. He alluded to the case of Hannah Brown, a girl of the age of fifteen, who had been tried within the last few days at the Old Bailey for stealing a pair of boots. When called upon for her defence, she stated that she stole the boots to sell them to procure money to buy bread, as her mother and brothers and sisters were starving, as they had been refused relief by the Poor-law officers. The judge stated that he had directed inquiries to be made into the circumstances of the case, and found the statement of the girl to be true; and he sentenced her to only two days' imprisonment, and animadverted in strong terms on the cruelty of the guardians of the poor. He wished to know whether this statement were true or not; and if it were, he trusted that such facts would never occur again, and that the unfortunate poor would not be placed in such a situation as to compel them to steal to obtain the means of existence.

should be glad if some time were given before the return was moved for, to see whether the information required could be readily obtained. He was not quite certain whether such' returns could be given, and therefore hoped the hon. Member would postpone his motion for a few days. For his own part he had no objection to give any of the information that was required; but he thought, if what was now asked for was given, that other returns would be requisite to elucidate them; for instance, the time when the several workhouses were opened for the reception of the poor, the different periods when the death of the inmates occurred, and the causes of their deaths, arranged under different headings.

begged to draw the attention of the House to a project which he was desirous to submit to the House for the abatement of a most annoying nuisance within the walls of Parliament. He had to offer an experiment for the better ventilation and lighting of that House, an object in which they were all interested as respected their comfort, their convenience, and their health. He had been given to understand that the project which had been tried for lighting the House by gas a short time since had failed, and that the whole of the expensive apparatus had been removed. A scientific gentleman, a Mr. Gye, had suggested a mode of producing a beautiful light in the House by an ingenious admixture of two gases in such exact proportions, that he (Sir Frederick Trench) though he was no philosopher, could easily divine, that if the exact proportion of these gases were not adjusted by some persons always on guard, who were philosophers, or if the person on duty fell asleep, or the adjustment of the two gases were to be disturbed by even the flapping of a stray bird's wing, the most unfortunate results might follow. If (said Sir Frederick) such an accident should, through these circumstances, or the negligence of these two philosophers, accompany this, Mr. Gye's, plan, you, Mr. Speaker, and this honourable House, would all be blown up together. The present mode of ventilating the House was open to great objection. The air was admitted from the floor through holes, over which a matting was spread. The air thus admitted, carried up into the atmosphere of the House great quantities of impalpable powder or dust, which being inhaled with the air, might affect the lungs of the most vigorous men in the House, whether the hon. Member for Kilkenny or for Finsbury, whose constant and assiduous attention to their duty at every hour on every night, particularly exposed them to the prejudicial consequences of such an unwholesome atmosphere, under which the hen. Member for Lymington, was now suffering. Dr. Birkbeck had proposed to procure a purer supply of air, by having two doors to the House instead of one. He had also applied for advice to Mr. Brande, and the result of all this consultation and consideration was his conviction that there was a very simple mode of ventilating and lighting the House much better. He would undertake that the experiment could be tried at the expense of no more than 10l. for two nights. He should propose to raise all the side lustres about four or five feet higher than they now were, and on a level with the two lights in front of the reporters' and strangers' galleries. To compensate for thus losing light by removing the lustres to a higher level, he would add the light of seventy more candles to the present light of 150 candles, and to procure a supply of fresh air, he would, after stopping up the holes now in the floor, open other holes in the side walls, about the height of eighteen inches above the heads of Members when standing near the wall. This he thought, could all be done for 10l. And if it were not an impertinence, he would offer to try the effect of it at his own proper cost and expense. He hardly knew whom to apply to with reference to the proposition he now made, whether to the House, to the Speaker, or to the board of works.

asked if the effect of a strong current of air at the backs of the hon. Members would not be extremely disagreeable?

said, that it would not he cold air. He proposed to remove the matting from the floor of the House also, in order to let the air escape more freely.

said, he had a very strong opinion upon the subject, and he did not think that the hon. and gallant Member had stated sufficient grounds to warrant the adoption of his plan. He approved of the present system of lighting and ventilating the House, and must confess that, under the former one, he had frequently found the air in the House a great inconvenience. Such was not the case at present, the House being very much improved in that respect, and also with reference to the facility of hearing. His opinion was, that Dr. Reid's operations had been in a very great degree, if not wholly, successful, and the present proposition was not called for. The gas experiment had proved very disagreeable—and, although many hon. Members complained of a great want of light in the House at present, he was of opinion that the introduction of a great blaze of light would be found still more so.

agreed with the hon. Baronet who had just sat down. He thought the House was now both well lighted and well ventilated, and disapproved of anything being adopted which had a tendency to interfere with Dr. Reid's plan of ventilation.

said, that the present manner of lighting the House was very disagreeable to Members sitting in the galleries of the House, and he understood the plan of the hon. and gallant Member to refer not so much to the introduction of any very great blaze of light into the House as to the elevation of the present lustres.

hoped the House would persevere in the present system of ventilating the House—as well as oppose any proposition such as this for altering the manner of lighting it. The hearing was much facilitated at present, and he thought that the plan of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite would very much affect that facility.

here submitted to Sir F. Trench whether it would be of any advantage to proceed further with the discussion?

expressed his opinion that many changes had been made with regard to the atmosphere of the House which were decidedly great improvements—the air being now almost as wholesome as any that could be produced. With respect to the proposition of the hon. and gallant Member relative to lighting the House, it might be an improvement, perhaps, upon the present system; but if the present cloth were to be removed from the floor of the House, and an oilcloth put down its place, great inconvenience would be the consequence, for all the arrangements respecting sound in that House had been made in reference to that cloth. He had prescribed very frequently upon this subject, and had, in fact, commenced his prescriptions very early in the present Session—but they had, on that occasion, been so very positively rejected by the noble Lord the Home Secretary—and by 656 other ungrateful patients, that he did not feel disposed to offer any on the present occasion. He considered, however, every part of the proposition of the hon. and gallant Member, except, perhaps, that relating to the manner of lighting the House, to be very bad.

suggested that the plan of the hon. and gallant Gentleman should be referred by him to the Chief Commissioner of Woods and Forests.

said he would prepare a plan, and lay it before Lord Duncannon. Subject postponed.

said, he rose to bring under the consideration of the House an important measure, relating to the administration of justice in the courts of quarter session and in the other county courts in this country. There were several reasons why it was necessary that the attention of Parliament should be called to this subject, and that there should be some legislation with reference to it. One very obvious reason was, that very great changes had taken place in the law with regard to capital punishment. For some years past those changes had been gradually occurring; but he more particularly referred to those more important alterations which were made in 1832 and during the last year. They had abolished capital punishment for offences that used to be deemed capital, and which used to come under the cognizance only of the judges. In order to show to the House the change of feeling that had taken place on this subject, he would contrast a speech made by a person of great eminence not many years ago with the actual facts of the last year with regard to capital punishment. The opinions of the eminent person to whom he alluded were those of Lord Chief Justice Ellenborough—a man of undoubtedly high legal attainments, and of most unsuspected integrity in administering justice in the court over which he presided for many years. It was known that Sir Samuel Romilly had proposed several measures for the mitigation of the severity of the criminal law. One of those measures related to the punishment for stealing 5s. in a shop. That offence was at that time capital, and Lord Ellenborough, when that bill came into the House of Lords, spoke with reference to it in these terms:

"My Lords, I think it necessary to state, that I never did cast any imputation, directly or indirectly, upon the motives of those who are the supporters of this Bill, when I intimated something like objection to what appeared to me to be a systematic plan for altering the criminal law of the land. What I meant, my Lords, was this—after having last year a Bill on our table which has made a most dangerous innovation on the criminal law of the country—having that followed up by another which is making equally as mischievous a progress—the same arguments applying to every law, and to every crime which has been applied to this—I want to know, my Lords, when we are to stop in this course of legislation? My Lords, if we suffer this Bill to pass we shall not know where to stand—we shall not know whether we are upon our heads or our feet. If you repeal the Act which inflicts the penalty of death for stealing to the value of five shillings in a shop, and suffer this Bill to pass into a law, you will be called upon next year, I have little doubt, to repeal the law which prescribes the penalty of death for stealing five shillings in a dwelling house, there being no person therein. A law, your Lordships must know, upon the severity of which, and the application of it, stands the security of every poor cottager who goes out to his daily labours. He, my Lords, can leave no one behind to watch his little dwelling, and dreserve it from the attack of lawless plunder- ers—confident in the protection of the laws of the land, he cheerfully pursues his daily labours, trusting that on his return home he shall find all his property safe and unmolested. Repeal this law and see the contrast—no man can trust himself for an hour out of doors without the most alarming apprehensions, that, on his return, every vestige of his property will be swept off by the hardened robber."^*

Those were the terms in which a person of the undoubted talent and authority of Lord Ellenborough—those were the terms which he used but a few years ago in favour of allowing the law to take its course, for stealing to the amount of 5s. in a shop. He sought not by this reference in any way to diminish the weight which attached to the name of that noble and learned Lord; indeed the opinions he quoted were stated to be those not of that noble and learned Lord alone, but of all the judges at that time; and his object was to show the great alteration which in the course of a few years, had taken place as regarded the feeling entertained on this subject, and the changes that it was consequently necessary to make in the administration of justice. During last year not only was the punishment taken away which Lord Ellenborough thought so essential to the security, in the open day, of the property of every poor cottager, but it was enacted, without any difference of opinion, that even in the cases of burglary at night, where no violence was done or threatened, the penalty of death should not be inflicted. In point of fact, the number of persons capitally convicted had so much diminished during the last few years, that in 1831 there were fifty persons executed; in 1835 there were thirty-four; in 1836 there were seventeen; and in the last year there were only eight. That number of eight was probably a lower number than there would be in this year or in future years, but it showed a very extraordinary change in the manner in which the law had operated. He had taken the proportion which the number of persons executed bore to the population during the last few years, making his estimate according to the supposed annual increase of the population from 1821 to 1831, and he found the following result:—

Years.	Executed.	Population.
1831	1	267,000
1835	1	437,000
1836	1	832,000
1837	1	1,903,000

^*Hansard (Old Series),—Appendix, vol.

Without entering into an examination of the grounds on which, both in its theory and practice, the criminal law had been so much mitigated in its severity, he would observe that it was evident it could not have been left to a trial at a quarter sessions to decide with regard to the case of a person stealing 5s. in a shop, when it was the opinion of the Lord Chief Justice and of the other judges that any conviction of that offence might be followed by the execution of the capital punishment. The gravity and importance of many of the offences brought before the quarter sessions were greatly changed by the act of last year, as well as by some other recent acts; and he did not know that at present there was any certain rule by which the cases to be tried at the quarter sessions could be distinguished from those which were to be tried at the assizes. The bill of last year provided that all offences which were capital previous to that enactment the quarter sessions should not try, but that they should be reserved for the assizes; those clauses, however, were struck out during the progress of the bill through the other House of Parliament; but it was at the same time stated that the whole subject required investigation, and that the attention of Parliament ought, as soon as possible, to be directed to it. He agreed that it ought, and feeling that there should be an enactment which should distinguish the cases to be tried by the judges from those which should be reserved to the quarter sessions, in the measure he proposed to introduce there would be a distinction drawn between those offences to be so tried by the quarter sessions from those to be reserved for the assizes. He did not think the distinction of the offences that now remained capital being left to the assizes would be satisfactory to the public, because, as they all knew, there were many of the offences that were capital no longer, that were of a very important and grave nature, and if the judges did not deal with them, it would probably be considered that they hardly gave that assistance in the administration of the criminal law which the judges of the land going the circuits and attending the assizes ought to be able to give. He would not now state the particular kind of offences that he proposed should be tried by the quarter sessions and by the judges. There was another important consideration which he thought established the necessity of the measure he was now introducing to their notice; it was the great number of persons who were now tried at the quarter sessions. He had before him a return of the numbers who were committed for trial at the different courts in the years 1835 and 1837; it was as follows:—

ASSIZE COURTS.
1835	3,408	1837	3,466
LOCAL COURTS.
1835	3,373	1837	4,027
CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
1835	2,849	1837	3,075

But the numbers were at the

QUARTER SESSIONS COURTS.
1835	10,737	1837	13,044

It was obvious that the constitution of a court which had such a very great number of criminals, which tried not less than three times as many as were tried at the assizes, was of the utmost importance. Amongst the other changes lately made in the law was that which allowed prisoners the benefit of counsel in cases of felony. He considered that a very proper alteration, but it was one which it must be admitted placed the chairman of quarter sessions in what many had felt to be a painful and difficult position. Their situation was now undoubtedly closely connected with the administration of justice in our courts. It was impossible for the chairmen of quarter sessions to allow arguments to be raised by prisoners' counsel which might mislead the minds of the jury from the true merits of the case, or to take a false view of the nature of the offence, without calmly and plainly setting right those arguments of counsel in their summing-up to the jury. He mentioned these facts because while he showed the difficulty of the situation, he established this, that it imposed on the chairmen of quarter sessions the necessity of great readiness and considerable knowledge of the law, to obviate the inconveniences that the arguments of counsel might otherwise occasion. Another consideration to which he wished to call the attention of the House was the very long period of imprisonment suffered in the prisons of this country before trial. It appeared from a statement he had made out, the particulars of which he would not go into, that the average imprisonment of the prisoners under sentence, comprising only those sentenced to be imprisoned, not those sentenced to be transported, was 130 days; and the average term of the imprisonment before trial was forty-six days. Taking a considerable period of time, the number was 134,000 imprisoned for forty-six-days, and about 60,000 imprisoned for 130 days; so that in the prison there were four days passed by persons before trial, and but five days by persons who were undergoing their sentence. The average time was forty-six days, being about the period of six weeks. It appeared to him that these several instances established the necessity of their now taking into their consideration some improvement in the courts of quarter sessions. It was not fit, he thought, that there should be so many important cases (in former times reserved solely for the judges) brought under the consideration of those courts, or that so great a number as 12,000 or 13,000 cases a year should be left to them, or that there should be so long a period of imprisonment before trial, without some attempt on the part of Parliament to remedy the evil. His opinion was, that they ought to enact that the courts of quarter sessions should be, in all cases, held twice as often as they now were—that they should be held every six weeks instead of every three months; thus, that in every county in England there should be eight of those general sessions, as well as two assizes, making ten courts held for the trial of offenders in the course of the year. But he certainly did not think that the country could expect that the burdens thus imposed on those courts of quarter sessions, considering the importance of the trials and the number to be tried, could generally and for a much longer period of time be exercised by gentlemen who had not originally had any professional practice in the law. He did not mean, and he hoped he should not be understood, to say, that in the discharge of their functions, which certainly had come to be of far more importance than any that were formerly discharged in quarter sessions, they had shown incompetence; he did not put the measure on any such grounds; he had made no statement to prove any such case; but he thought it for the public convenience that there should be the means, if it were considered fit, of having a person of legal education to preside. He did not propose that this measure should take effect at first without the application of the magistrates attending the court of quarter sessions. He proposed that on an application from them notified to the Secretary of State, the crown should be empowered to appoint a barrister of seven years standing as chairman of such courts. He proposed to connect with this a further proposition, with respect to which he had had a great deal of communication with the Lord Chancellor, and his hon. and learned Friends, the Attorney and Solicitor General. When Lord Spencer was a Member of that House, and before he was in office, he brought forward, in three consecutive years, a measure for the improvement of the county courts. His object was, that suits for the amount of 10l. and under, should be tried before those courts, and that the courts should be rendered less expensive, less dilatory, and, altogether, more efficient for that purpose. The noble Lord's bill never passed into a law, and in 1827, a measure having a similar purpose was introduced by the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Robert Peel), who had then lately quitted office. His measure was founded on the same general principle with respect to the improvement of the courts, and the manner in which the cases were to be tried; the expense was to be little, the process was to be summary, and there was a power to summon not more than five persons to act as jurors. There was a difference, however, with regard to the judges who were to try these cases. In his noble Friend's measure, there were to be certain Commissioners as judges, named for certain counties. The proposition of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) was, that the sheriff should appoint a deputy or assessor who should act as the judge of the court. Now it did appear to her Majesty's Government that by adopting in part the principles of these two measures, and by combining the duties of presiding over the civil courts with the functions of the judges who were to act as the judges of the quarter sessions, the county courts might be rendered much more efficient than they had ever yet been. A sheriff, who was an annual officer, holding his office but for the year, would not be considered entitled to give, nor would it be proper that he should give, to any person of his nomination, a title to the situation of judge during his life or good behaviour. The inconveniences of such an arrangement were so obvious that he need not detail them. He thought it far better that the judges should be named by the Crown to hold the office for life or during good behaviour. So far his measure was in conformity with the proposals of the Commissioners appointed in 1834; they proposed judges of this kind; also that the large counties should be divided into different districts, and that the judges should sit in the various towns of the same county. He proposed a similar arrangement, namely, that when the magistrates thought it necessary that the county should be divided into districts, an application to that effect having been made and granted by the Crown, the judges should sit once in six weeks in each town of the county, every such town being the capital of the district. He thought, that under such an arrangement, there would be a very cheap and efficient administration of justice. Persons would not be obliged to be for three or four days at a considerable distance from their homes, and the expense of witnesses and others would be considerably lessened. His noble Friend, the Lord Chancellor, had a measure which he proposed to introduce into the other House of Parliament. His bill related to an act, which he thought was the 3rd and 4th of William 4th c. 32, and which provided for sending issues to be tried before the sheriff that did not go beyond 20l.; what the Lord Chancellor proposed, he believed, was, that the Courts of Westminster should have the power of sending issues to be tried in this manner to the extent of 50l. Where small counties were joined together, it might be possible for one person to perform these functions for more than one county. Perhaps that principle might be carried to a still greater extent; but experience, alone, would enable them to determine the matter. He expected that the fees of these courts for the recovery of debts would pay a great portion of the expenses of the judges and other officials, but he would say, that the county ought to pay out of the county rates, a certain sum for the remuneration of the chairman of the quarter sessions. Independently of this, however, he did not propose that any additional burthen should be imposed on the county. The calculations of the present expenses, taking into account the present expense both of keeping persons for a long time before trial, and of taking witnesses a great distance, had shown, that from 20,000l. to 30,000l. might be saved, that sum being now lost, and not for any advantage gained in the administration of justice, but merely for the delay of the administration of justice. He hoped, then, that this measure would improve the administration of justice very considerably, and without entailing on the country any great expense. There were other subjects connected with this, which would readily occur to hon. Gentlemen's minds, and on which, therefore, he would not enter at this moment, but he would avail himself of the opportunity to inform the House that he intended shortly to introduce a bill relating to the present state of the prisons. It was his wish to carry further some changes in our prison discipline, that were effected three years ago in consequence of the inquiries of a Committee of the other House; but in his endeavours to accomplish that object, he should like to have the benefit of the labour of a Select Committee of this House; he should, therefore, move the appointment of such a Committee, and hoped that some Gentlemen, who were well qualified, would assist him in amending the provisions of the measure to which he had adverted. He did not think it necessary to trouble the House any further at this time; he hoped there would be other occasions on which he should be able to communicate to the House some further improvements in the criminal law. He felt that the rapid alteration which had taken place, partly attributable to a change of manners, and partly to legislative enactments, required that we should do something to keep pace with that alteration, rather than endeavour to maintain our institutions exactly what they were in former times. He, in conclusion, begged to move for leave to bring in a bill for the improvement of the county courts of civil and criminal jurisdiction.

did not rise for the purpose of offering any opposition to the introduction of the bill, which he was ready to say related to a subject of great importance, and might, perhaps, involve a great improvement in the law. He thought, however, that the question of the appointment of a paid barrister as presiding judge over these Courts, required much consideration. As far as his own experience of Quarter Sessions went, he must say that the law was well administered by the country gentlemen in the county, a part of which he had the honour to represent.

said, that the noble Lord was entitled to great praise for the many measures for the amendment of the law which he had brought forward. He thought that this was another measure for which the noble Lord was entitled to the gratitude of his country. He was glad to find, without meaning the slightest degree of disrespect to the magistracy of this country, that duties of such great importance as those connected with the administration of justice should in future be performed by persons professionally competent to the discharge of those duties. He thought that the improvements proposed by the noble Lord would tend to lighten the expense to the country, and at the same time to remove crime. He cordially supported the measure, with one single exception, and that, in his opinion, was one which was likely to obstruct the progress of the measure; he alluded to the provision which enacted that this measure should not be carried into effect except in cases where the magistrates applied for its introduction. He thought that if the measure was of real importance, if it effected great public good, and he would be surprised to hear this denied, in that case, he thought it desirable that it should be at once introduced and carried into operation generally. He would not oppose the bill, but he could not help expressing his regret that this provision formed a part of it.

most cordially concurred with all that had fallen from the noble Lord. He begged to ask the noble Lord whether it was intended that the same judge should preside in the sheriffs' courts as at the Quarter Sessions? [Lord J. Russell—Yes, the same.] He hoped then that the bill would be made compulsory, and that its introduction would not be left to the discretion of the magistracy.

rejoiced to find, that no opposition had been offered on any hand to this measure, and he rejoiced still more to find that the noble Lord in bringing forward this measure had offered to the House one of the greatest improvements ever contemplated in the administration of the laws of this country. But he was exceedingly anxious to know from the noble Lord whether he intended to limit the jurisdiction of this valuable court to cases of debts. He also wished to know whether the court would entertain questions of damages not being debts. The third class of cases respecting which he wished to ask was that of trials of ejectment in cases of property of small amount—whether these would come under the jurisdiction of the new courts? The hon. and learned Member concluded by expressing his objection to making the operation of the bill dependent on the discretion of the magistrates.

merely rose for the purpose of answering the inquiries of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cockermouth. It was proposed to extend the operation of the court not merely to all cases of recovery of debts, but to all those cases which now might be decided in the county court. It was perfectly well known that the county courts, as now constituted, extended to almost all personal actions, and he hoped that all these actions would be brought before this court, where the damages did not exceed 10l. If this succeeded, then the jurisdiction might be extended. With respect to cases of ejectment, he saw no reason why they should not be included in the operation of the bill. In reply to what had been said on the propriety of making the bill compulsory, he thought that no one who was a sincere friend to the measure would press that point. It was perfectly certain that the bill was likely to be introduced generally and become popular, and he had no doubt that before two years had expired the measure would have become the universal system of England.

said, that those who professed a regard for the magistrates of England took a very odd way of affording a very practical manifestation of their regard for those gentlemen when they suggested that, instead of being left to their discretion to adopt the measure, they should have no discretion at all in the matter, but that the bill should be made compulsory. He thought this was by no means behaving well towards that useful body of gentlemen, who gave their valuable services gratuitously, and discharged them with no less advantage than satisfaction to the country. There was another point to which he objected—namely, the payment of the salaries of the officers under this Bill out of the county rates. This, he thought, would be found burthensome and unsatisfactory, He wished to call the attention of the hon. Gentleman to the fact that offences of a certain description against property had very much increased in the county with which he was connected. He particularly alluded to the crime of sheepstealing, which prevailed to a most alarming extent. Sheep were stolen in large numbers as many as 140 had been stolen at once, and found their way into the hands of butchers. This was a very serious offence, and one the recurrence and extension of which it was important to devise means to check.

expressed his complete satisfaction with the measure. He flattered himself he was not saying too much, on the part of the payers of county-rates, when he said that they would not grudge paying the salaries under the bill in return for the great benefits in the administration of justice which would be conferred by it upon the country.

said, the House would perhaps be surprised to learn, that no fewer than 13,000 persons had been tried in the course of last year at the Quarter Sessions, there being an increase of 3,000 persons above the preceding year. This might, however, be in a great degree accounted for by the fact that additional sessions had been held in many places in pursuance of a recommendation of the judges of assize. The questions he rose to ask were, whether the paid chairman who was to be appointed to preside was to have a concurrent jurisdiction with the magistrates, or was to be considered as the recorder now was in cities and boroughs, and whether appeals against orders of removal, &c., were to be tried in this court?

said, the chairman was intended to act as chairman of the court, not as sole judge or recorder, and that appeals were to be tried before the Court.

said, it was worthy of observation, that the Irish Members in the House were unanimous in support of this bill, some of the enactments of which were upon the model of what was already established in Ireland. He hoped that hon. Members would agree to copy still more the institutions of Ireland. Why not follow the example of Ireland, and give the court power to try cases of ejectment to the value of 50l.? It was also well worthy of consideration, that the salaries of the assistant-barristers in Ireland were paid, not by the county, but out of the consolidated fund, and he hoped that, in justice to England, the Chairman of these courts would be placed upon the same footing, and paid out of the consolidated fund. He hoped, also, that the noble Lord would extend to England the principle that courts be held every six weeks, instead of every three months, as at present.

was perfectly certain that no person would grudge to pay the salaries under this bill out of the county-rates who was capable of judging of the improvement in the administration of the criminal justice of the country which would be effected by this bill.

could not, upon this occasion, deprive himself of the pleasure of expressing the great satisfaction which he felt at the measure brought in by the noble Lord. He sincerely hoped the noble Lord would not be deterred from the "permissive system," which was well calculated to recommend the bill to the country. There were one or two points, however in which he thought the bill defective, but these he would have an opportunity of considering more fully at a further stage of the bill. At present he might say, that when there were to be eight sessions held in the course of the year instead of only four, as at present, there was no necessity for setting a court entirely apart for the trial of debts. The business, it appeared to him, might be taken together in the same court.

said, it was intended that the business should be done in the same court.

—Then my objection ceases.

had now only to express his acknowledgments to the House for the manner in which it had been pleased to receive the bill. He trusted he should be able to have the bill printed and distributed some time before the next Quarter Sessions came on. It was not his intention to bring it on for further consideration before Easter, in order that in the mean time hon. Members might have an opportunity of maturely weighing its provisions, and making suggestions with a view to rendering the bill as effective as possible.