Sayfadaki görseller
PDF
ePub

lent wish to benefit the whole human race which distinguished our modern economists. He did not lose sight of the different interests of different nations. As long as the human race existed, nations would rise up against nations, and there would be strife on the earth. There never could be that great republic of mankind which these writers talked of. It was incumbent on their lordships, therefore, to provide for the cultivation of their own lands, and not look for a supply of food from other countries. The question of the Corn-laws was one which could not be decided by theory. The decision of their lordships must be the result of long and patient inquiries, embracing every part of this complicated question. He could not, therefore, agree with the noble Secre→

tions of the agriculturist. Another mistake committed by the petitioners was, in supposing that the cultivation of inferior soils was injurious to the country; which was not the case. If they remained uncultivated, not one half of our present population could be subsisted. The petitioners also forgot, that by our present modes of cultivation, corn and cattle went together. They supposed that, if we did not grow so much corn, we should have more cattle; but this was founded in a mistaken notion of our agriculture. By our present modes of cultivation, we raised five or six times as much corn as we did three or four centuries ago. It was supposed, too, that if our inferior lands were not cultivated, they would become good grass lands; but, if they were so, it was only in consequence of their having been cultivated. By in-tary of State in his views, as to an inclosing lands and cultivating them, they were made good grass lands; and, in consequence of our improved modes of cultivation, and the increased capital invested in agriculture, we now grew three times as much food as we did at the time of the restoration of king Charles 2nd, and had probably three times as many people. Corn, also, was now cheaper than it was at that time at least in comparison with the commodities exchanged for it; and this, he contended, was also the consequence of our improved cultivation. To illustrate the difference between the manufacture of corn and other commodities not subject to the variations of the seasons, he would refer to our cotton manufacture. It was said to amount to the annual value of thirty millions sterling. Let their lordships suppose, that just as it was ready for market, it was invaded by an army of moths, as the farmers produce sometimes was by an army of caterpillars -destroying one-half of the cotton; and that then the cotton manufacturer was required to sell his goods for fifteen millions: supposing the cost of producing them twenty-four millions, instead of gaining six millions, he would lose nine. If the farmer were always to sell his produce at the same price, he would be ruined, and the country would be ruined also; for, if the agriculturists were ruined, what would become of the rest of the people? Our old Corn-laws were founded on a correct view of the principles of political economy -not, however, of modern political economy. He did not allude to Dr. Adam Smith, who knew nothing of that benevo

quiry into one single and minor topic. He hoped their lordships would not consider the question in one point of view only, and with reference to one interest, but would include in their inquiries all the points of view possible, and all the interests of the country; above all, he hoped they would never lose sight of that great interest which supplied the people with food.. There was one part of the petition which their lordships had just rejected, which aimed directly at the existence of the British constitution. What was it that had preserved the constitution of this country so long? What! but that it was founded on the property of the country. No government could exist which was not founded on property; and he would have their lordships take care how they adopted any measure which reduced the landed interest still lower. If this interest were

He

further beat down than it was at present,.
it would be reduced to nothing, and the
constitution would be destroyed.
hoped, before any measure was adopted by
their lordships, that they would go into a
much more extensive inquiry than the one
recommended by the noble Secretary of
State.

Ordered to lie on the table.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, February 22.

[ocr errors]

OF

CORN LAWS EQUALIZATION CONTRACTS.] Mr. J. Maxwell presented a petition from the productive classes of Renfrew, praying for Reform, a free trade in Corn, and an Equalization of Contracts.

The genius and spirit of the constitution, the hon. member said, seemed to justify the extension of suffrage to those who paid taxes; and the result of such extension would produce greater economy in government. A free trade in corn would partly indemnify the artisan and labourer for the evils induced by the rivalry of mechanical labour, without disturbing the general law for agricultural protection. A revision of contracts would preserve the debtor from being defrauded by his creditor under false pretences, avert the risk of national bankruptcy, and give the sanction of public opinion, and its security, to the creditor of the state. A contrary course contributed to discontent, increase of poor-rates, and unjust revolutions in property; and when monied, as well as commercial, manufacturing, and agricultural, income should be reduced 30 per cent as the currency which represented, as well as measured, all income, had already been by the return to cash payments; the levying taxes to pay the interest of the debt, and to defray the expenses of the state, might become impracticable.

a paper monopoly. Then, as to Scotland, they inquired into the currency of that country, and the result was, that they left it as it was. Then again, they neither inquired into, nor touched at all upon, the currency of Ireland. This was the sort of interference-this the description of policy which they called legislation!

Lord Folkestone charged ministers with supineness in having so long neglected the vital question of the currency. Their conduct gave rise to the inference, that they had altered their opinions upon the subject; for they had failed to carry into effect the principles which they set out with avowing. There was a tampering already going on with the currency; and, under such circumstances, the question could never be said to be settled.

Ordered to lie on the table.

CRIMINAL LAWS-BILLS FOR THE CONSOLIDATION OF.] Mr. Secretary Peel rose to bring forward his promised motion. He had now, he said, agreeably to that motion, to apply to the House for leave to bring in four bills, having for their object the simplification and conso

Mr. E. Davenport took occasion to com-lidation of the statutes relating to the plain of the conduct of Ministers, with respect to the question of the currency. He had already given a vague notice on the subject; and he believed that, in consequence of this threat, ministers had been induced to put off the consideration of the Corn question from the day for which they had originally given notice. He would now take the opportunity of saying, that he would redeem the pledge which he had given, and take a speedy opportunity of formally bringing the subject under the consideration of the House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that if the hon. member had not concluded by giving this general notice, he should scarcely have been able to comprehend exactly what he was at. But, if he supposed that government had been induced to postpone the Corn question on account of any thing he might have said in that House, or what any one might have said any where else, he could only undertake to give to such an assertion a peremptory denial.

Mr. Maberly complained of the manner in which ministers had acted with respect to the currency question. They first tampered with the currency of England without inquiry. Without inquiry they created

Criminal Laws. The first of those bills was intended to consolidate and amend the laws relating to theft, and the various offences connected therewith. The second was to amend the law relating to another class of offence against the subject, namely, a wilful and malicious injury of property. The third bill for which he should move, would be to consolidate and amend the laws relating to remedies against the hundred. And the fourth bill which he should submit to the notice of the House, would have the effect of repealing such statutes as would be superseded by the three first bills, in order not to encumber the Statute-book, by the introduction of separate acts of parliament for the attainment of that object. By this means, the three bills which he had already named would not be impeded in their operation, by clauses and enactments contrary to their spirit. He had entered last session so fully into the policy and necessity of amending the criminal statutes, that he was not sure whether it was at all necessary to enforce the reasoning which he then used, or to trouble the House with a repetition of his views, notwithstanding some of the members whom he had now the honour to address were not in parlia

to distinguish between grand and petty larceny, and to award different punishments for each crime. It appeared, however, that the only difference between them consisted in the amount of the pro

ment on that occasion. Indeed, it required no very powerful reasoning to show the necessity and policy of consolidating the criminal laws of this country, and of simplifying, as much as possible, those statutes relating to crime and misde-perty stolen; for thus the law stood on meanour, which had hitherto created so much error and confusion in our courts of justice. Such a course as that of revising and consolidating confused and unintelligible statutes appeared so consistent with reason and common sense, that he scarcely thought it necessary to adduce any arguments in its favour, where all whom he had the honour to address must agree in the necessity of the measure. He was therefore quite satisfied that the House would sanction the part which he had taken, and confirm the support which his predecessor had given to the subject. The House, however, was not called upon to give a blind judgment: on the contrary, he wished and expected that honourable gentlemen would reserve to themselves the power of expressing an opinion on a subject of such vital importance. Although, however, he had suggested many changes, he had not, after all, proposed any very important alterations in the criminal statutes; because he was desirous of proceeding gradually in the course of improvement, and to avoid as much as possible the use of rash experiments. What he wished was, to collect all that was valuable from existing statutes, and to preserve from a mass of contradiction and confusion, various clauses and provisions introduced at different periods into our criminal laws. He was desirous of selecting all that was worthy of being preserved, in order to present to the House a useful and efficient statute, and thus to place as it were in juxta-position all the law connected with the criminal jurisprudence of the country. It was his wish to abolish every part of the criminal statutes that could not with safety be acted on, and to accommodate the laws relating to crime to the present circumstances of the country, and the improved state of society. Feeling, therefore, that the House would agree, in principle at least, to the measures which he intended to propose, he did not think it necessary to trouble them with any further arguments, but would proceed at once to explain the present state of the law relating to theft, which was the subject of his first bill. It was the practice, in criminal courts of justice,

the subject. If a man was convicted of stealing an article under the value of one shilling, it was simple larceny, punishable at the option of the magistrate before whom the case was heard; but, if the property stolen exceeded one shilling in value, the crime was called grand larceny, to which a capital punishment was attached. Now, after giving to the subject his best consideration, he could not see the necessity of retaining the distinction which the law laid down in these cases. There were many inferior courts spread throughout this country, which had power to take cognizance of, and to try persons charged with, the crime of petty larceny, but who had not power to try for the crime of grand larceny. The consequence of this was, that both courts and prosecutors, feeling the great expense and inconvenience of sending persons charged with these offences to be tried by the higher tribunals, agreed to evade the law, by stating in the indictment, that the value of the article stolen was less than one shilling. These instances, it was true, were not very creditable to the parties concerned, but they furnished ample reasons for abolishing all distinctions between grand and petty larceny. He would, therefore, unite the different species of the crime of larceny under one general law; and he would fix, as the maximum of punishment, a sentence of transportation for seven years. It was hitherto the custom to mitigate the sentences affixed to the crime of grand larceny; but he owned he could not see the reason why, if the power existed, a criminal convicted of this crime should not be transported for stealing to the value of two shillings. There was a material difference between grand and simple larceny, when a prisoner was twice convicted. A man who repeated the crime of grand larceny, was liable to a sentence of death, without benefit of clergy. He meant to propose, that the capital punishment should be dispensed with in this instance. He would propose also to do away with a term which had long been mixed up with the criminal law of England. He meant the "benefit of clergy." It was extremely difficult to

done more towards the great and important object of improving and consolidating the criminal statutes of this country, than any other individual who had gone before him. He never was an advocate for the infliction of capital punishments, and he thought it would be found, on comparing the executions for the last five years, in which he had presided at the home department, that they had not increased in number, as compared with those that had taken place in former years. Willing as he felt, however, to reduce the amount of capital convictions, he advised the House not to be led away too far by mistaken feelings. If parliament were to proceed too rapidly to overthrow the existing enactments, a strong prejudice might arise in the country against measures that were intended for the public good; and thus the great object of justice and humanity might be defeated.

With respect to the law relative to malicious injuries to property, which his second bill was intended to embrace, he conceived that it might be beneficially altered, and confined within proper limits. He conceived the punishment attached to the crime of cutting down hop-fences,

apply the term "without benefit of clergy" to any particular crime, and to say what was a clergyable offence. It appeared to him, that the law in this particular should be simplified. Instead of saying, therefore, that the man who commits grand larceny a second time was guilty of a capital offence, without benefit of clergy, he proposed to substitute the punishment of transportation for life. This would serve to make the law more clear and intelligible; and he was sure that the House would go with him in every alteration he proposed, whereby the number of capital crimes might be lessened. Thus, the man convicted of grand larceny a second time would no longer be subject to death. In proposing this alteration he was aware, however, that it was not very material; as it rarely occurred that the penalty of death was put in force when a man was convicted of grand larceny a second time; but it was right at the same time, that the law in this particular should be clear and determinate; for it was one of the just objections brought by foreigners against the criminal laws of England, that we condemned men to death for crimes, who were never executed, and whose sentence was, in fact, never intend-stakes, hedges, &c., was neither clearly ed to be carried into effect. It would therefore be a material improvement, if in every available instance, we could erase capital punishments from the Statute-book, and provide milder punishments, and thereby avoid the mockery of condemning men to death, merely because that penalty was attached to the crime which they had committed. He proposed also to mitigate the penalty for stealing in a dwellinghouse to the value of forty shillings. According to the law, as it now stood, the penalty of death was attached to that crime. A distinction, however, he conceived should be made; and there were cases in which the punishment of death might be considered harsh and unnecessary. He therefore meant to propose, that the sum of forty shillings should be raised to a higher amount; by which means the number of capital convictions for this species of crime would be considerably diminished. He was not prepared to say whether or no it might not be necessary to go further in the plan of reducing the number of capital convictions. Much had lately been done, and much remained to do; but he thought he might claim some credit to himself for having

nor properly defined; and therefore he proposed to abrogate the law altogether, and try the effects of a milder punishment. Without entering more fully into the particular clauses of each bill, of which the committee, whose appointment he anticipated, could best judge; he would now only refer to the general principles upon which he came forward to claim the countenance and support of the House. Notwithstanding the very able assistance he had had, he felt considerable difficulty in drawing up the bills which he hoped to be allowed to introduce; owing to the number of abstruse and unintelligible phrases which he found it necessary to use, in compliance with the usage of the law in this particular. The endless repetition of words; the confusion of the singular and plural number; the frequent use of the words "party or parties," "defendant or defendants," "corporations," or "person," had always, he confessed, puzzled him beyond measure, whenever he had occasion to refer to an act of parliament. He had, therefore, in the bills which he had framed, avoided as much as possible the confusion arising from the frequent introduction of words and phrases;

and at the commencement of each bill, he had defined the precise punishment for each particular crime, adding to the end of the bill, in order to remove any doubt occasioned by the ambiguity of the language, that the word " mentioned in the body of the bill, should person," when be taken to mean the party accused, whether man, woman, or child, and that the same should hold good, with regard to owner, defendant, or defendants, or by whatever term the accused party might be designated.

Whilst he was upon the subject of the criminal laws, he wished to say a few words on a subject which was intimately connected with the question. It would be in the recollection of the House, that some years ago, a parliamentary commission was appointed, to inquire into the state of the several courts of law, and into the fees and emoluments of the judges. All those venerable and respected individuals submitted cheerfully to the investigation; yet, in the minor and subordinate courts of justice no inquiry had been made respecting the nature and amount of fees and other emoluments of the persons officiating in them. He had heard, and he believed, that great abuses existed in those courts, For instance, the other day, a demand was made for heavy fees, from persons who had actually been acquitted of the crimes with which they had been charged. The House must see the manifest impropriety of tolerating such a monstrous anomaly. So that it would have been mercy to the accused if the judge had found him guilty, because in that case his punishment would have been less by the amount of fees which, as an acquitted man, he was called upon to pay. A man acquitted by a jury of his country, should be free of any such odious impost, and any attempt to punish him, either in his person or his pocket, after that acquittal, was a direct libel on our boasted trial by jury. He was, therefore, strongly inclined to recommend an inquiry into the fees of officers attached to the minor courts of law. The office of subsheriff he also considered ought to be inquired into. It was an office with which he was himself very little acquainted. He only knew that, in some counties, the fees amounted to 600l. or 700l. a year, and that the situations were eagerly sought for, while the office of sheriff was considered so much the reverse of desirable, that applications were constantly made by

gentlemen appointed to be relieved from
serving. He would, therefore, should he
see occasion, submit a proposition to the
House, to inquire into the fees and emolu-
ments attached to the office of sub-sheriff;
should wish to be enlightened.
an appointment with regard to which he

which he conceived improvement might be
The office of coroner was also one, in
made. The coroners of England had, in a
body, petitioned parliament, praying for an
increase of salary, and representing how
found, however, that although the office
very inadequately they were paid. He
of coroner was burthened with so many
wants, it was a situation which, somehow
competition whenever it became vacant.
or other, gave rise to very considerable
He, indeed, had heard of instances, in
which contests for the situation of coroner
had been as expensively carried on as in
bers of parliament. He should be happy
contested elections for the return of mem-
to hear, therefore, how it was that coroners
were so inadequately paid, and that the
office was nevertheless so greedily sought
after. The offices of clerk of the peace
and clerk of the assize ought also to be
investigated, with a view to ascertain the
nature and amount of fees attached to
such appointment. Without throwing out
any insinuation against individuals holding
those offices, he wished to know by what
authority those fees were demanded.
Another office requiring investigation was
that of clerk to magistrates. It would
also be desirable to ascertain the amount
of fees demanded and taken by such per-
sons, and the authority under which they
were demanded. Without pointing out
particular cases, there were instances
enough of the misconduct of magistrates'
clerks; and that honourable and inde-
pendent body, the magistrates of the
country, should be careful who they
appointed to fill those situations. These
points, though not immediately connected
with the bills which he meant to move for,
were, nevertheless, connected with the
due administration of justice, and were
therefore points to which the attention of
the House should be particularly called.

might think that the alterations which he
There might be some individuals who
all, more upon theoretical reasoning than
was now suggesting, were founded, after
practical experience.
found, however, that the propositions which
He had not as yet
he had already submitted to the House,

« ÖncekiDevam »