Surely this is the enactment which common sense suggests as the fit enactment against the wilful receiver of stolen property, whether that property be lead or pewter, jewels or bank notes. The example to which I have last referred will sufficiently explain the mode in which I have attempted to proceed in simplifying and compressing the law, in all other cases of a similar nature.

I come now to a subject of at least equal importance. The supplying of those omissions in the law which insure the impunity of guilt. Of those omissions I will give some examples. Under the law as it stands at present, it has been decided that it is not an offence, at least not an offence in the eye of the law, to rob a ready-furnished house, notwithstanding that it is a very serious offence to rob a ready-furnished lodging. It is upon record, that after the conviction of a man who robbed of some articles of plate the house which he had hired, the sentence was respited upon a doubt whether the case were within the statute which uses the word lodging and not lodging-house. It was agreed by all the judges that the case was not within the statute, and chief baron M Donald ordered the prisoner to be discharged, saying, "I am sorry the laws of England have not provided for your case, for I have no doubt whatever of your guilt."

Again, the statute which makes it an offence to steal or destroy fish in streams, expressly refers to such streams as pass in or through an estate. If therefore the stream, as is frequently the case, neither passes in nor through an estate, but passes between two estates, being the boundary to each, the owner of the fish forfeits his protection under the statute.

Can any man doubt that these are examples of imperfection and omission in the law, which can and ought to be supplied? Can any man doubt that it is expedient to extend, as I propose to extend, the protection which the law at present gives to securities for property in the British funds, to securities for property in the funds of foreign states, and to mercantile instruments of all kinds, entitling the holder to the payment of money abroad? Is it fitting that these securities and instruments should be liable to be stolen with impunity? Is it fitting that the

1

title-deeds, that the stealing of a will on which the property and existence of whole families may depend, should remain altogether exempt from penalty ?

The law with respect to a very frequent and very aggravated offence, the embezzlement by servants of their masters property, is at present very defective.

Among the principal defects are these: It is necessary to state in the indictment, and to prove in evidence, the embezzlement of specific monies, not merely of the sum in the gross of which, the master may have been defrauded but of the particular coin or notes of which that sum consisted, which may have entirely escaped the recollection of the master.

Again, if the servant has defrauded his master by the means of receiving change, he cannot be convicted at all. Supposing, for instance, the servant having 10s. to receive for his master, gives 10s. to the party from whom the money is due, and receives a one-pound note, which he embezzles, he commits no offence against the law. He cannot be convicted of embezzling the note, for that was not the property of his master, nor can he be convicted of embezzling shillings, for he has received none.

The main defect in the law is this: the offence is at present a felony; now by the rules of law each act of embezzlement is considered a distinct felony, and only one distinct felony is admitted to be proved upon an indictment for felony. The prosecution therefore often fails from the impossibility of laying the whole case, the whole tissue of fraud, before the jury. The proof being confined to a single act of embezzlement, the jury leans, not unreasonably, to mercy, and frequently chooses to presume that the single act of embezzlement may have arisen from mistake, rather than to convict for the felony.

I propose to remedy these defects; to admit proof that various sums have been received and misapplied by a prisoner, without requiring proof as to the specific coin or bills of which those sums consisted. I propose to alter the legal designation and character of the crime of embezzlement, to make it a misdemeanor instead of a felony, and thus to admit the proof of that which may be absolutely neces sary to enable the jury to determine the real extent of the prisoner's guilt, namely, of the whole series of embezzlement, in which he may have been engaged.

In the course of the observations which I have made, several cases have been mentioned in which I propose to subject to penalties, acts which at present may be committed with impunity.

But I beg to observe, first, that these acts, are in every instance acts of great moral guilt, which only escape at present through the imperfection of the law; and, secondly, that the new penalties which I affix, amount in no case whatever to death; I constitute no new capital felony. I propose to extend the grasp of the law; but in no instance do I increase, in some I mitigate, its severity.

I will mention two important examples of the abatement of penalty.

The law which makes it an offence punishable with death, to steal in a dwelling-house to the amount of 40s. extends at present to all out-houses within the curtilage, as it is called.

It is intended to except for the future from the operation of this law, so far as regards capital punishment, the stealing in all out-houses which are not connected with the dwelling-house by some internal communication.

Another case in which it is proposed to reduce the penalties of the law, arises out of an act of the last session of parliament, which makes the robbery of gardens, with out any distinction of circumstances, a transportable felony. The severity of the penalty renders this law in many instances inoperative. It is paralyzed by the stronger law of humanity and reason, which tells a man to overlook altogether the offence of the school-boy who robs an orchard, more from a wanton spirit of enterprise, than from vice, rather than consign him to a prison, and indict him for a felony.

We shall give more effectual protection to the owner of this species of property if, while we retain the severer penalties for all cases of aggravated deJinquency, we empower a magistrate to hear the complaint, and if he shall think fit, to dismiss the offender for the first offence on payment of a reasonable fine.

I have now detailed the leading objects contemplated by the bill for consolidating the laws relating to Larceny, or I should rather say, I have given such examples of those objects as will enable the House to understand the general scope of the mea

I will now proceed to explain the outline of the other, and not less important, bill, which is intended to effect improvements in the administration of the penal law generally.

It is impossible, Sir, to contemplate without painful reflections, the state of this country with respect to the number and the increase of criminal offences. It is useless, it is worse than useless, to conceal from ourselves the truth that there is not in this country that security from fraud and depredation which there ought to be in a well-constituted society: and that there has been of late years a rapid and alarming increase in the amount of that species of crime.

Many causes may concur to swell the amount of crime in this country, as compared with the amount of it in some other countries of Europe.

Property in this country is much greater, more generally extended, and necessarily more exposed. The freedom of action which is allowed to every man by our law, the absence of any control upon that action through the medium of police establishments, like those which exist in many countries, empowered to act upon vague suspicions, and preventing by unceasing vigilance the commission of offences that would otherwise be completed-such causes no doubt contribute in many instances to favour the early stages of vice in this country. But while I notice their existence and their effect, let it not be supposed that I am blind to the greater good which counterbalances the evil, or that it is my purpose by rash attempts at controlling the excesses which this freedom of action may engender, to impair the noble spirit, the enterprise and energy, that are its blessed offspring.

I shall now proceed to submit to the House a few details with respect to the comparative numbers of criminal offenders at different periods, and I deeply regret that the result is in some particulars so unsatisfactory.

In the seven years, ending December 1816, there were committed to the several gaols in England and Wales 47,522 persons charged with criminal offences.

In the seven years, ending December 1825, the number was nearly double, amounting to 93,718.

In the former period there were 29,361 convictions. In the latter 63,418.

In the former period there were sentenced to death 4,126 persons. In the latter 7,770.

come all the natural feelings of delicacy and shame, and shall appear in a public court to prove the disgusting details of the injury she has received; it requires the sacrifice of time, the trouble which are inseparable from public prosecution, and after all, inflicts on the injured party the heavy penalty of paying the whole expenses of the suit. There may no doubt be occasionally subscriptions towards such expenses from private and casual sources, but the public purse is closed by law to the prosecutor in such a case as that which I have been detailing.

Take again the case of gross abuse of authority, or gross neglect of duty, by some public officer, amounting to misdemeanour, can we expect that private individuals will take upon themselves the invidious duty of lodging the complaint, the painful task of arranging the proofs, and finally the whole costs of prosecution, and all this out of a pure abstract love of justice and tender care for the public interests?

It is ridiculous to expect it; to with hold public aid from the prosecutor in such instances as these, amounts to the frequent denial of all reparation to the poor man, and to the impunity of great offenders.

My attention was drawn to the last instance which I have mentioned of imperfection in the law, by a gentleman whose name will be familiar to all who hear me, the reverend Mr. Sydney Smith, a magistrate of the county of York. He had committed a man on the charge of poisoning cattle; the man's house was searched by a constable, who found there the poison (arsenic), brought it to the house of Mr. Smith, and subsequently to screen the prisoner from punishment denied that any poison had been found. The constable confessed the part he had acted in this transaction, and yet the magistrate had no alternative but either to permit such flagrant misconduct to go unpunished, or to take upon himself the whole burthen of the prosecution.

Either alternative appears to me fraught with injustice, for which I hope to devise a remedy.

Perhaps in my own opinion a more extensive remedy ought to be applied than that which I am at present prepared to apply. But such a remedy might work a change in our institutions and habits too material to be hastily adopted, without feeling our way by the aid of that pre

vious discussion which familiarizes the public mind to changes, that may be good, abstractedly considered, but that lose half their benefit, if they are too precipitately carried into effect.

If we were legislating de novo, without reference to previous customs and formed habits, I for one should not hesitate to. relieve private individuals from the charge of prosecution in the case of criminal offences, justly called by writers upon. law-Public Wrongs. I would have a public prosecutor acting in each case on principle, and not on the heated and vindictive feelings of the individual sufferer on which we mainly rely at present for the due execution of justice. Such feelings are rarely the fit measure of the propriety of prosecution. They are apt on the one side to overrate the wrong committed; on the other, still more apt to subside after the first impulse of revenge, and coupled with the just fear of trouble and expense, to lead to disgraceful compromises in which the interests of justice are altogether overlooked.

I would therefore make the prosecution of these public wrongs much more a matter of public concern than it is at present, I would (taking at the same time all proper security against the encouragement of undue litigation) indemnify parties more liberally from the pecuniary charge which the trial of a public offender entails, and I would by the appointment of a public prosecutor guard against malicious or frivolous prosecutions on the one hand, and on the other, I would ensure prosecution in cases in which justice might require it.

In Scotland crimes are prosecuted in this manner through the agency of a public officer, responsible for the justice and propriety of the prosecution when undertaken at the public charge, and for the conduct of it through its various stages

The public prosecutor in Scotland has another power devolved upon him-the exercise of which is frequently of the utmost advantage. In the prosecution of a crime, to which the penalty of death is attached by law, he is enabled in preferring the indictment, or indeed any subsequent stage of the trial, to restrict the sentence in case of conviction to a punishment short of death, thus empowering the jury to find a verdict of guilty with a perfect assurance that the death of the prisoner cannot be the consequence of that verdict.