may attend the prolongation of a system like the present. My object is, to make the laws popular, to reconcile public opinion to their enactments, and thus to redeem their character. The just and faithful administration of the law is the great bond of society. If those who hold the reins of government, instead of attempting a remedy, content themselves with vain lamentations at the growth of crime, that growth must continue to spread a just alarm.

I will now, Sir, conclude by moving, "That a Select Committee be appointed to consider of so much of the Criminal Laws as relates to Capital Punishments in Felonies, and to report their observations and opinion of the same, from time to time, to the House."

Lord Castlereagh then rose; and after complimenting the hon. and learned member on a speech, in the temperate and candid style of which he was sure he joined the whole House, he said, that the true question on which he was at issue with the hon. and learned gentleman was, to consider the species of proceeding which would be most likely to lead to a wise and salutary result. In his notions concerning this matter, it was evident, that the noble lord had a decided preference to a practical view of the subject, while he held, in profound contempt, what he called the abstract and visionary opinions of his antagonist. These differences constituted the whole of his argument, which be concluded with a motion. He felt it, he said, his duty to move the previous ques

tion on the motion made by the hon. and learned gentleman, not from a wish to oppose him, not from any disposition to throw obstacles in the way of inquiry, but because he conceived the adoption of the hon. and learned gentleman's views would tend to separate the inquiry into the state of the criminal law, from the inquiry into the nature of punishments; thus defeating the united consideration of such important and concomitant topics; and because he therefore thought the appointment of the committee of last night was the step most calculated to lead to advantageous results.

Among the speeches in favour of his hon. and learned friend, one of the most decided was, that of Mr. Wilberforce. He began with declaring, that in his long experience of that House, he had never heard a more able address, a more splendid display of profound knowledge of the subject, with such forcible reasoning from the facts which that knowledge had called forth. He had not only derived great pleasure from what he had heard, but also from what he had not heard in the course of the discussion; namely, those arguments, or rather those objections, against alterations of, or inquiry into, old laws and customs, which had been so vehemently urged at former periods. He had heard opinions at that time, which any man would blush to hold at the present day. No such objections were, however, made on this occasion; and the only one to the motion of his hon. and learned friend was, that it would be better to refer the

matter

matter to the committee proposed by his noble friend. Why should he prefer the expectation of a committee, when he might have one at the present moment, when there were so many reasons urging to the immediate inquiry? Why should not some alteration be made, which would take from a jury the painful task which they had so often to perform at present? and yet that could be done by an alteration of the laws. It had been said, that our laws had not been made all at once, but had been the result of gradual legislation. That was the fact; but it argued nothing against the original motion. It was thought a safe way of checking the crime, to fix the penalty of death against its commission. But experience taught, that this was a most erroneous mode of legislation. The persons with whom we had to deal, were such as were careless, as well of this life, as of the life to come. They looked not to the enormity of the crime, but to the chance of escaping the punishment. Ought, then, the system to be continued which this very principle brought into action? If not, there was the very best reason for a committee. He could not but think, that instead of being considered hasty in their desire for a committee on this subject, they ought rather to be accused of being tardy in not having called for it before; and that the legislature was to blame in having so long neglected a matter wherein human life was at stake.

Several other members spoke upon this occasion. At length, the previous question being put,

"That that question be now put," the House divided: Ayes, 147; Noes, 128: Majority in favour of Sir James Mackintosh's motion, 19. The main question was then put and agreed to; and a committee was appointed, consisting of several leading members.

Trial by Battle Abolition Bill.

The Attorney General having, on March 19, moved the order of the day for the farther consideration of the report of this Bill, Sir F. Burdett rose, to consider at large how it would affect the right of appeal, with which, he conceived, it had nothing whatever to do, any more than an indictment at common or statute law. It was, he thought, a measure which went to increase the power of the Crown, inasmuch as it would deprive the subject of an appeal against what might be an illegal and unjust extension of the power of the Crown in pardoning criminals in cases of murder. After a considerable discussion upon this subject, Sir F. Burdett moved, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the question, in order to add the words, "That this bill be recommitted."

Mr. Sergeant Copley said, that he would rather that the bill of his hon. and learned friend should be lost altogether, than that an attempt should be made to carry it into effect with the amendment proposed to be made. He then adduced a considerable number of facts, to show, that the right of appeal was still acted upon, and considered as the law of the land. Proceeding to the speech of the hon. baronet, he said he [E 2]

had

had maintained, that the Crown had no right to pardon for murder, and that it was abolished by statute. In this he begged leave to differ from him entirely. The Crown had the prerogative, though it might, like other prerogatives, be abused; but if taken from the Crown, where would the hon. baronet have it placed? When a party was prosecuted for a criminal offence, it was necessary that he should be charged upon oath, and a grand jury must find a bill before he could be put upon his trial; but in a case of appeal, it was only necessary for the appellant to make affidavit that he believed the party to be guilty. Yet such was the system which the hon. baronet, an avowed friend to the liberty of the subject, felt himself called upon to applaud.

The Attorney General justified the clause as absolutely necessary. If, in the case of Ashford v. Thornton, the appellant had persevered in the trial by battle, he had no doubt the legislature would have felt it their imperious duty at once to have interfered, and have passed an ex post facto law for preventing so degrading a spectacle from taking place.

The question being put, "That the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the question," the House divided; Âyes, 86; Noes, 4.

On the 22nd of March, the same bill being moved for a third reading by the Attorney General, Sir Robert Wilson, after moving, as an amendment, "That the bill be read a third time this day three weeks, the House again divided upon the question that

the bill be now read a third time. This was carried by Ayes, 64; Noes, 2: Majority, 62. The bill was then read a third time, and passed.

First Report of the Secret Committee, on the expediency of the Bank resuming Cash Pay

ments.

"The Committee of Secrecy, appointed to consider of the state of the Bank of England, with reference to the expediency of the resumption of Cash Payments at the period fixed by law, and into such other matters as are connected therewith; and to report to the House such information relative thereto, as may be disclosed without injury to the public interests, with their Observations thereupon-Are engaged in deliberating upon their report, which they hope to be able to present to the House on an early day after the approaching recess.

"The committee having a confident expectation that, in that report, they shall be enabled to fix a period, and recommend a plan, for the final removal of the present restriction on the Bank, think it their duty to submit to the House, that the execution of any such plan would, in their opinion, be materially obstructed and delayed by a continuance of the drain upon the treasure of the Bank, on account of the engagement of the Bank to pay in cash all its notes outstanding, of an earlier date than Jan. 1st, 1817, and on the account of the payment in cash of fractional sums under 5.

That the committee, therefore, think it their duty to sug

gest

gest to the House the expediency of passing forthwith a bill, restraining all such payments in gold coin, until the report of the committee shall have been received, and considered by the House, and a legislative measure passed thereupon."

The Report was ordered to be printed.

Mr. Peel then said, that the object of this bill would be, to restrain, till the expiration of the present session of parliament, issues of cash in the manner he had described. The delay would enable the House to consider the subject, and to take the measures which the committee might here after suggest. The reasons for this measure lay within a short compass. Whenever the time came for removing the restriction, a large sum in cash would be necessary; that sum considerably exceeded the sum which the Bank had at present in its possession; and as it was manifest that any diminution of this sum would not be productive of any advantage to the country by its immediate effects, so it was also plain, that this diminution of its treasure would make the Bank more unable to return to cash payments, and would therefore tend to postpone the period for the termination of the restriction. It was for these reasons, and in the fullest confidence that it would tend to hasten the period of cash payments, that he should propose the measure. He then moved for leave to bring in a bill to restrain the Governor and Company of the Bank of England from making payments in cash, under certain notices given by them for that purpose."

Mr. Peel then added, as it was of the highest utility that the measure should pass as expeditiously as possible, he hoped the House would allow it to go through its several stages that evening.

Mr. Brougham, among various other grounds by which he justified an opposition to the proposed bill in all its stages, said, that it would be one of the most unwarrantable kinds of proceeding, to commit a violent breach of the forms of the House to protect the House against its own regulations. The Bank had not been compelled to pay the notes issued before 1817; they had the option to pay or not pay. If, therefore, the measure had been founded on the convenience of the Bank, he had no doubt as to the course to be taken. But he had more doubt when it was put on another ground, namely, that the committee not having finished its investigation, but having made a certain progress in it, not seeing exactly to what end their deliberations would lead, had grounds for supposing, that another measure, if not necessary, would be mainly subservient. But when the proposition was thus stated, the question arose, why should this measure be hurried through the House with such extraordinary rapidity. The question now came to a balance of evils. If he was persuaded that the measure was necessary, and if it were delayed three or four days it would be wholly nugatory, he might be content to take the extraordinary step which was recommended; but unless the right hon. mover, and the other members of the com

mittee

mittee could take on themselves to say this, he, for one, could not consent to see the standing orders of the House violated.

Lord Castlereagh next rose as an assistant to his right hon. friend, but it was merely for such a purpose that he gave himself the trouble of speaking

at all.

Mr. Tierney affirmed that this was one of the most important measures that could be brought before parliament; and if one thing surprised him more than another, it was the extraordinary composure with which the proposition had been received. He went on to say, that they would now find that the promises of the Bank were worth nothing; and that the faith of the legislature was not more valuable than the promises of the Bank; for those who from excessive wariness chose to possess notes convertible into gold, were cut off by an act of parliament passed through each House in a single night, from the property which was gratifying to their own private feelings. But it would be said, necessitas suprema lex, and it was necessary to examine how the question of the issues stood. It was in 1817 that the notices were issued under which the payments were made; and the drain had gone on from that time to this without answering any other purpose than to enable the chancellor of the exchequer to make a speech, to say that cash payments were virtually resumed. In the last year he had brought in a bill for continuing the restriction act, and at the same time he saw with his eyes wide open, the drain which was

then going on more rapidly than at any time since, yet he took no step to stop it. He believed there was not a gentleman in the committee who before Saturday had heard a word either of the danger or the remedy; and for his own part, till yesterday, he should no more have thought of the committee making such a report, than of their doing the most improbable and extravagant thing in the world. The House at large were in the dark from knowing too little he, on the contrary, was in a difficulty from knowing too much as a member of the secret committee. But to mention a fact that was no secret; what had been the conduct of the Bank? Their whole object, it was said, was to resume cash payments; they lived in the hope of it, and the delay of it was misery. The noble lord was very anxious on the subject: he had laboured to prove, that the less money the Bank had, the less they could pay (for that was the amount of his proposition), but as for the Bank, they felt no alarm whatever. So quiet were they, that no conversation had taken place between the Governor and the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the last three months. It was said, on the part of the Bank, that they did not ask for this measure. It was, indeed, only on Saturday night, that its expediency was suggested by two hon. gentlemen, one a Bank director, the other a gentleman, no doubt, of mercantile consequence. But it was for the House to consider, whether it would allow, upon such a suggestion, all the usual forms to be suspended, in order to carry a mea

sure,