tributable to the game-laws. He would appeal to any country magistrate to say, whether he had not found, in the course of his experience, that the greater part of the men apprehended for serious crimes, did not attribute their situation to having been concerned in poaching.

Mr. Sykes said, he trusted that the remedy before them for acknowledged evils would be found efficient. He was glad to hear that the law which so cruelly punished a boy for stealing an apple was to be revised. It was ridiculous to punish so trivial an offence in so severe a manner. He thought there were very few members of that House who had not been guilty of it. With regard to the matter of costs, they ought to be particularly cautious how they trusted magistrates with a discretionary power of that kind over the county rates. He meant particularly magistrates of towns who had large personal property, but which was not subject to the county rate. There were other ways in which the costs might be defrayed. In misdemeanors, for example, the punishment was fine and imprisonment. Now, could it not be so arranged, that magistrates should have the power of giving part, or all of the fine to the prosecutor?

Sir G. Chetwynd approved of the measure, but objected to the expense likely to be cast upon each county by the prosecutions for assaults and certain other offences. He was aware that this was a serious charge upon individuals, but he nevertheless hoped that the right hon. gentleman would be cautious in adding this burthen to the county rates. He was surprised to hear an hon. member state that there was no specific mode of punishing persons guilty of child-stealing, other wise than by prosecuting the parties for stealing the clothes. The fact was, that the act of the 34th of George 3rd, c. 101, made the stealing of children a grand larceny.

Mr. Estcourt thought it was a mistake to attribute the increase of crime in the country to the operation of the game-laws. He rather looked for the cause of that increase in the poverty and privation endured by the lower classes. With respect to the payment of costs upon prosecutions for misdemeanor, he agreed in the principle, but thought the expense should be defrayed, not out of the county rate, which touched only one description of property, but out of the general taxation of the country.

Mr. Alderman Brydges suggested that

some mode of disposing of juvenile offenders ought to be adopted, as it was found that the alternative of imprisoning them, or letting them run about the streets, was calculated to corrupt and demoralize them.

Mr. Secretary Peel protested that he did not know how to frame an act of parliament which would prevent children from running about the streets; but any suggestion from the hon. member to that effect he should attend to with great pleasure. The provisions of his measure generally he wished to have thoroughly canvassed, and should feel obliged to any hon. gentleman who would take the trouble to suggest alterations in it. There was one alteration in the law relative to estreating recognizances which he should deem it peculiarly important to make as soon as possible. Nothing was more common than for persons who were bound over to appear as witnesses, upon prosecutions, and not called in court, to be actually arrested, perhaps years afterwards, owing to some error as to their appearance or non-appearance. As an instance of this vexatious practice, the right hon. gentleman stated the contents of a petition which he had just received from a prisoner in Shrewsbury gaol, who had been arrested on the estreating of his recognizances for a prosecution in the year 1818, he having been present in court while the trial went on, but not having been called as a witness. With respect to the payment of costs in cases of misdemeanor at sessions, he believed that they would be far lighter in amount if paid out of the county-rate than out of the general funds of the country. He had observed that all expenses allowed at sessions by magistrates who had an immediate desire to keep the county expenses down, were much lighter than those given by the judges of assize.

Leave was given to bring in the bill.

STEAM VESSELS IN SCOTLAND.] The Lord Advocate rose to move for leave to bring in a bill to regulate vessels navigated by Steam in Scotland. The object of his bill was, he said, to prevent accidents, and to take care that the persons appointed to navigate Steam-vessels should be properly qualified, that the vessels should undergo examination, and be obliged to carry lights, and that in navigating them, they should follow the same rule as those observed by carriages in the streets.

Mr. Hume said, he would not directly oppose the bill, but he had great doubts of the utility of it. It was brought on in consequence of some recent accidents, which every one must lament; but he did not approve of the system of legislating upon particular events. The public might be left, he thought, to take care of itself. People would choose their steampackets as they chose other conveniences that they wanted, and would take those which had the best reputation for safety.

Sir H. Parnell had strong doubts of the propriety of such a bill as this. Unless the learned lord could show that

there was a necessity for the measure, it would be better not to interfere. In consequence of some accidents which happened between Liverpool and Dublin some years ago, a bill containing regulations of this sort requiring inspection, &c. was enacted; but the law was altogether neglected. A law of this sort was as applicable to stage coaches as to steamvessels.

Sir E. Harvey said, that if the bill was brought in, it ought to be general. It was as much wanted in other parts of the kingdom as it was in Scotland.

Mr. Sykes objected to any bill of this sort proposing intricate regulations, which it would be impossible to carry into effect. It would be better to leave the conduct of the captain free, and not to interfere with him.

The Lord Advocate said, that the object of the bill was to establish public rules for the regulation of steam vessels. Had those regulations been in existence a year ago, the accident in October last could not have occurred.

Sir J. Newport would object to the motion. If the people of Scotland were not to be trusted with the management of their own steam-boats in their own way, it would be much better to introduce a bill to prevent them from using them altogether.

Sir C. Cole hoped, if any enactment were deemed necessary, that it would be applicable to all parts of the empire. The best regulation that could be suggested was that which prevailed in the royal navy, in which, by given signals, each ship knew on which side of the other it ought to pass. Had that principle obtained, the fatal accident alluded to could not have happened.

Mr. Secretary Canning hoped that hon.

gentlemen would not refuse permission to bring in the bill. A notion had become prevalent, that there was a disposition in the House to rob Scotland; and it would, indeed, be a most serious robbery to deprive her of her inhabitants. A long list of grievances under which Scotland laboured had recently been sent out into the world; and if the House of Commons now refused to give a hearing to this bill in the first instance, the refusal would be set down as an additional item in the long catalogue.

Mr. Hume strongly urged the learned lord to withdraw his bill.

Mr. Hobhouse trusted that the learned lord would withdraw his bill. The people of Scotland would not thank him for this interference. He might just as well bring in a bill to prohibit them from navigating by steam.

The House divided: For bringing in the bill 70; Against it 26: Majority 44.

LOCAL JURISDICTIONS IN IRELAND.] Mr. S. Rice moved for leave to bring in a bill for the more effectual execution of the laws in cities and towns corporate, and other local jurisdictions in Ireland.

Mr. Goulburn had no immediate objection to the motion, but reserved his right on the introduction and discussion of the bill to suggest any curtailments, or to offer any clauses which he might deem necessary to prevent the infringement upon chartered rights and privileges of corporations.

Mr. Hutchinson hoped that the bill. would be printed before it was discussed, and that it would be sent over to Ireland, and ample time allowed for the statement of objections to it on the part of bodies interested.

Mr. R. Martin said, that he looked on this bill as a great improvement in the laws of Ireland. It would go to cure the abuses that were obvious to all; such as the registration of freeholds. He knew some counties and towns, in which freeholds were kept unregistered for years.

Mr. Frankland Lewis thought the measure ought not to be confined to Ireland. As a general principle of legislation, it was capable of being applied to many parts of this country with advantage. At the same time it was a question not free from difficulty, and he hoped no steps would be taken but upon mature consideration and certain information. The greatest difficulty would be to provide a

six

any borough or town corporate in Ireland, should be impeached for non-residence, and therefore the consequence of repealing that act would be to impeach persons who were not non-resident. It might be said, that persons who had enjoyed the franchise for a certain number of years could not be impeached. That was true; but it was equally true, that persons who had not enjoyed the franchise for that number of years would not be protected. He was not prepared to state what number of persons had been in possession of the elective franchise for years, and were therefore impeachable; but the House would pause, now that they were approaching to the period of the natural dissolution of that House, before they agreed to the passing of such a measure as that now contemplated, without having first ascertained the number of persons who would fall within its operation. As those persons had been admitted to enjoy this privilege for seventy years, there could be no objection to allowing them to enjoy it for seventy-one years. He thought the right hon. baronet ought, under the present circumstances, to wait for a new session of parliament for the introduction of such a measure. The consequence of this repeal might, for aught the House knew, be the disfranchisement of whole corporations. The motion of the right hon. gentleman went to repeal an act passed forty years previous to the Union of Ireland with this country. Now, at the time of the Union, in 1800, when a selection was made of the boroughs which ought to continue to send members to the united parliament, that selection was calculated upon the principle of the number of electors entitled to vote, compared with the state and condition of the numbers in those towns. He should, therefore, oppose this motion; first, as a measure of general policy, which went to narrow the elective franchise; and, secondly, because he thought it would be an act of injustice to open again an arrangement made at the period of the Union. It had been said, that a similar bill had been brought in upon a former occasion, and thrown out upon the second reading. That circumstance was, in his opinion, an argument against, rather than in favour of the motion; and he should, instead of waiting to vote against the bill, upon the second reading, take the preliminary step of opposing the introduction of it.

Mr. R. Martin ventured to remind the right hon. secretary for Ireland of the his

tory of the act of George 2nd, which was the most disgraceful that ever took place in the Irish parliament. That act was procured by a person possessed of great influence in the Irish parliament, who was generally known by the name of Jack Promise, who exchanged a borough in the west, for a borough in the north, of Ireland. In the borough of Newtown Limavady, which Jack Promise got in swap for the other borough, he found that he could not conveniently manage the resident Protestant voters, and that it would be better if he could extend the franchise to his own ser◄ vants and followers; and he therefore procured the sanction of the Irish parliament to the 21st Geo. 2nd; but in order to screen his object from the eyes of the public, he made the words of the act general. The right hon. baronet was entitled to the thanks of the House and the country. He ought not to be told that he did wrong to introduce it, because of its retrospective effects. But might not that difficulty be got over by the insertion of a clause to save existing rights? If the bill were allowed to go into a committee, a clause to that effect might be inserted. "Let us wait," said the attorney-general for Ireland, "until the general election." The act should be repealed now, and the new bill need not come into operation until the election would be over. This course would surely satisfy the right hon. and learned gentleman. As interested motives had been hinted at, he begged distinctly to state, that he was not actuated by such motives. It was sixty or seventy years since the Galway case came before the courts of law. In the erroneous court, or rather the court of error-perhaps one term was as applicable as the other-it was determined, that that act had nothing whatever to do with Galway, He gave the motion his hearty concurrence. The only reasonable argument advanced against it was, that it interfered with existing rights; but that might be guarded against by a proviso of the nature to which he had alluded. This might be called "petty legislation." Some gentlemen seemed partial to that phrase. It had been applied to himself in advocating some of the measures which he had lately had the honour to introduce. But he, for one, did not think it petty legislation to prevent the recurrence of the cutting out of the tongue of a poor dumb beast, and sending it round on a plate, while it was yet quivering and reeking. Gentlemen might laugh and