The Sun.
London, England, 1828-02-29 00:00:00

LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 29, 1828.

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
ORDERS OF THE DAY FOR THIS DAT.
1. Courts of Common Law—Adjourued Debate thereupon.
2. Supply—Committer.
3. Ways and Means—Committee.

stated that the regulations in that prison were such as
not to admit of improvement. At present it was visited,
and reports of its condition were made, ten times a year
in accordance with a rule established by the Right
Honourable Secretary for the Home Department.
One part of the complaint was that they were not allow-
ed porter and wine, and yet he assured the House that
each poor debtor was allowed three shillings throughout
the year from a fund to which his Majesty liberally
subscribed, and to which the Magistrates of the county also
contributed. After a few words from Lord Morpeth, the
petition was ordered to be printed.
Lord DUNCANNON presented petitions in favour of
the Catholic Claims from Ballyragget, Urlingford, Johnstown,
Darrow, and several other places in the county of Tips
perary, and the Quein's• County.
Sir T. LETIII3RIDGE presented a petition- from the
Maltsters of Taunton, against the Malt Duties.
Mr. PEEL moved that an humble Addreas be presented
to his Majesty, praying that he might be pleased to direct
that there be laid before the House returns of the number
of persons committed to the Gaols of England and Wales
during the last seven years, distinguishing the number in each
year, the nature of the crimes for which they were charged
—those against whom Bills were not found by the Grand
Juries, those who had been tried and convicted, the sen-
tetres passed-open them, and the number who suffered
death.—Ordered.
IRISH CATHOLIC BISHOPS.
Mr. J. GRATTAN rose, pursuant to notice, to present
a petition froth the Roman Catholic Bishops of Ireland,
praying the House to give its aid towards the work of edu-
cation. The labours of the Commissioners who formed
the Board of Education were, he thought, rather mis-
chievous than useful, and his decided opinion was, that
the House should grant no more money for the alleged pur-
poses of education in Ireland. He wished to learn from
the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite, the Secretary for
Ireland, whether it was intended on the part of the Irish
Government to bring forward any specific measure, hav-
ing for its object to amend the footing upon which the
system of education in Ireland was placed.
On the question that the petition be brought up,
Sir JOHN NEWPORT recommended his Hon. Friend,
after moving that it be printed, to fix some ulterior day for
the purpose of fully and fairly bringing the subject under
the consideration of the House.
The petition was then brought up and read ; it appeared
to be from the Roman Catholic Bishops, on the subject of
education.
Mr. LAMB, after adverting to the length of time since
this subject was first brought under the consideration of
Parliament, observed, that the difficulties with which it
was surrounded were by no means diminished by the pre-
sent aspect of the times. He added, that it was not the in.
tention of Government to propose any practical measure on
this subject, at the same time that there existed every dis-
position to bestow upon the subject the most serious consi-
deration.
Mr. SPRING RICE said, the moment the Irish Esti-
mates were brought forward, his Right Hon. Friend aban-
don the declaration he had made, for they would impose
upon him the necessity of moving upon the subject. If
no one else else did, he (Mr. S. Rice) would move for a
Committee of Inquiry upon this subject.
Col. WOOD concurred fully in the recommendation to
grant no more money.
Sir H. PARNELL said, that every grant of money for
this purpose was regarded by the Irish Catholics not as a
boon, but as an act of hostility.
Mr. F. LEWIS vindicated the Education Commission ;
and said he would be prepared to discuss the question with
any of the Hon. Members whenever it came fairly before
the House.
Mr. H. GRATTAN supported the prayer of the peti-
tion.
Mr. MOORE (of Dublin) defended the Kildare-street
Society.
Mr. J. GRATTAN made a few further observations;
after which the petition was brought up, and ordered to he
printed.
POLICE OF THE METROPOLIS AND ITS VI-
Mr. PEEL rose and spoke as follows :—Mr. Speaker, I
am desirous to call the attention of the House to a subject,
which at first sight, perhaps, may appear to be limited in
its application and objects ; but which is in point of fact
connected with considerations of the utmost importance to
the well-being of the country. I allude, Sir, to the increase
of crime which has taken place within the metropolis, and
the districts immediately adjoining to it ; and to the state
of those Establishments of Police, and to other establish-
ments of the same nature which are connected with the
prevention of crime, and with the detection of offences.—
The greatest part of the gentlemen whom I have now the
honour of addressing, may recollect that at an early period
of last Session I gave notice of my intention to propose to
the House to institute an inquiry into the state of
the Police of the Metropolis. The circumstances
which led to my retirement from office prevented me
then instituting the inquiry I wished to pursue;
and after Easter it was too late for the other
person concerned in the administration of public
affairs to prosecute any active or efficient inquiry into the
subject. A Noble Lord, the Member for Dungarvon—l
beg pardon, I mean the Member for Bandon—gave notice
of a motion upon the subject, and at his instance a Com-
mittee was appointed, which had for its object an inquiry
into the causes which had led to the increase of crime in
the country generally. That Committee prosecuted its in-
quiries for some time, and made a Report upon the subject,
which contains a great deal of very useful information, and
which has also laid the foundation of further inquiries,
which I trust it is the intention of the Noble Lord to re-in-
stitute in the course of the present Session. The inquiries
of the Committee to which I allude were directed to three
objects. First, the increase of crime in the Agricultural
Districts ; secondly, the increase of crime in the Manufac-
turing Districts ; and, thirdly, the increase of crime in the
Metropolis. The only subject, the only branch of these three
divisions, which the Committee had, during the last Ses-
sion, leisure to inquire into, was the first of the investiga-
tions. No evidence was taken as to the cause of the in-
crease of crime in the manufacturing districts ; no evidence
was taken as to the cause of the increase of crime in the
Metropolis. These last two subjects were not at all
gone into by the Committee, for the reason I have stated.
Now, Sir, I feel, when about to propose a Committee
of Inquiry into the state of the Police, and into the state
of those Establishments which are connected with the sup-
pression of crime, that' all inquiry would be necessa-
rily imperfect, unless we devolve on that Committee
the duty of inquiring into the third branch of the
subject--namely, the causes of the increase of crime in
the Metropolis and in its vicinity. In the motion which I
have now to submit to the House, I have the entire assent
of the Noble Lord, who originally proposed that Inquiry,
and who probably will renew the investigation which he
so happily ecunmenced. In moving for a Committee to
inquire into the Causes of the Increase in the number of
Commitments and Convictions in London and its Vicinity,
Sir, I most heartily wish that it were not in my power to
adduce satisfactory evidence of the necessity of instituting
such an inquiry. Unfortunately, the evidence of this
necessity is too plain, is too frequent, and too important
to have escaped any man who has given the slightest at-
tention ' to the subject. Any person who has the least
information with respect to the state of many parts of the
districts which border on the metropolis, must be perfectly
satisfied that the security for property—(Hear, hear.)
that the security for persons (but chiefly for persons), is
not what it ought to be in well-regulated society—it is
not the protection which every subject who gives allegiance
to the State has a right to expect.—(Hear, hear.) This
inference is not only founded upon the experience of all
who reside in the neighbourhood of the metropolis, and
who have personal knowledge and correct information as to
the state of many parts of those districts, but it is also
drawn from the Returns which are prepared at the office of
the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and
which have already been laid upon the table of this
House. ,These returns, Sir, afford a most convincing
proof, that there has been, within late years, that increase
in the number of committals and convictions for crimes in
London and Middlesex, which alone affords sufficient
proof, not only of the policy, but of the absolute necessity
of some inquiry into the :subject. Speaking of the causes
of the increase of crime in London and its vicinity, one
observation offers itself with respect to the increase of crime
in the country generally. I must postpone this branch of
the subject, until I have disposed of that which I am now
upon. Sir, the Returns to which I allude, contain an ac-
count for each year of the number of commitments and con-
victions in the prisons of London and Middlesex—an ac-
count of crimes committed on the population of that part

of the kingdom. From :these Returns the numbers ap-
pear as follow :-
182!221,5457831 1123,
In the year ?820
1821..
"oitjleatgrna2:l:3stoti oipbfoertiohnae
1820
1823
there
re thatis ni no thesevery ftinmarteyreiaalrs,v3lrBi2atoi,oniblt.ia2ohsel
there
ebb
number of committals, and there was a reduction in the
number in the year 1821 In the period of the four years
total of 01f822,077tf10.18213n,
increase in the number of commitments, and this has gone
on progressively until the end of 1826. I mentioned that
the
ee
yreedarucltiso2n4
in 1823 the total number of committals tor criminal of-
fences (for I exclude slight cases, such as assaults, of-
fences under the Vagrant Act, and all crimes of a petty
nature, and I speak only of higher crimes), was 2,505.
The number of criminal commitments in London and
Middlesex was,

In 1824.
1825
1826
1827 3,881
So that in 1826 the increase was rapid ; and although the
number of committals in 1827 was rather less—less by 76
than those of the year immediately preceding, still the in-
crease of the former years was so s'ery large, that the small
decrease in 1827, as compared with the year 1826, can he
no reason why the House should object or hesitate to insti-
tute the Inquiry I have the honour to propose—
Number of Criminal Offenders committed to the different
Gaols in the several Counties in England and Wales, for
Trial in the Years 1826 and 1827, showing the Increase
or Decrease in the last Year in each County.
In the County of In 182 G. In 183'7. Incr. Doc.
Bedford B3 108 25
Berks l4O 208 69
Bucks ll3 182 69
Cambridge -
Cheater 415 497 82
Cornwall llO 150 40
Cumberland
Derby
Devon
Dorset
117 175
403 451
427 415
Esseru
(Bristol)Gloucester
158 139
Hants
Hereford
Hertford
Huntingdon
Keiat 632 632
Lancaster 2371 2459
Leicester
Lincoln....
Middlesex 3457 3381
Monmouth 6O 95
Norfolk 441 486
Northampton
Northumberland 72 96
Nottingham
Oxford
Rutland l7 11
Salop l3O 178
Somerset
Stafford 448 569
Suffolk
Surrey
Sussex
Warwick
Westmorland 9 20
Wilts 824 365
Worcester 169 250
York 996 1223
Anglesea
Brecon ll 16
Cardigan
Carmarthen
Carnarvon
Denbigh 24 26
Flint .... 12 22
Glamorgan 43 54
Merioneth 2 6
Montgomery . 3 22
Pembroke ti. 20 42
Radnor 3 15

16,147 17,921
Nett Increase

29 -
58 -
48 --.

56 -
53
13 -

--
23 .-
108 -
- '76
35 -
--
53 -
24 -
11

43 -

48 .......
156 -
121 -
5B -
- 38
32 ---
21 -

SI -
227 -I4‘

2
S ---

10 --
11. ~.-.

19 -
22 -
12 --

1931
.... 1774

The number of criminal offenders committed for trial
to the diffi•rent Gaols in England and Wales, has progres-
sively very much increased within the last 18 years. In
the year 809 they amounted to 5,146 only; in 1826 they
had increased to 16,147; and during the year 1827, the
number has still further increased to 17,921, or 1774 more
than the number in the preceding year.
In the last year the increase in 44 counties amounts
to 1931. There is, however, a decrease in six counties
(and in Bristol) of 157, which makes the nett increase of
1774, as above. In two counties the numbers in the two
last years are the same.
The numbers in 1827, as compared with the preceding
year, have inreased as follows :
Convictions
Acquittals
No Bills found, &c 164 Imprisonment ... 681

Total increase... 1774 1 Increase of Convictions 1469
The number of persons convicted of, and charged with,
burglaries, has increased in the several Counties 96 in
the last year, excepting in (London and) Middlesex, the
number of persons convicted of, and charged with, the fol-
lowing crimes, has also much increasing during the last
year, namely,

132 Housebreaking

139 Cattle, Ilorse:and Sheep-stealing
44. Forgery
13 Coining
75 Robbery of the Person
26 Larceny from the Person
10 Embezzlement of Property of their Employers
53 Frauds
126 Receiving Stolen Goods
35 Offences under Lord Ellenborough's Act, and
102 Offences under the Game Laws.

It is some satisfaction to be thus able to inform the
House, that the increase in the number of offences is not
an increase of those crimes which are of a more aggravated
nature ; there is no increase in the number of cases of per-
sonal violence, of murder, of assaults upon the person; the
increase is solely in the number of those offences connected
with property. If we compare the total number of com-
mitments in 1826 with the number in 1820, we shall find
the increase to be 684 ; for in 1820 the numbers were 2773,
and in 1826 they were 3457. If we compare the num-
bers committed in these two years, we shall find that the
increase in the cases of simple larceny are sufficient to ac-
count for the increase in the total numbers. In 1820 the
number of persons committed for simple larceny was 1384.
The committals of the same nature in the 1926, were
2,120, being an increase of 736. The total increase of the
general number is 684, which shows a decrease in the
other species of offences. But with respect to simple lar-
ceny, you will find an increase upon the whole. There are
considerations connected with this subject of immense im-
portance. I have taken great pains in comparing these
official returns, and I have also taken pains to ascertain the
amount of crimes generally, and in some of the largest towns
of foreign countries. It is not easy to procure accurate
returns from different countries, and when procured, it is
difficult to draw any precise inference or analogy from
them, from the different classifications of crime which are
made under different Governments. I am in possession of
returns of the comparative amount of crime in Berlin,
Vienna, Paris, Lisbon, Antwerp, namburgh, and other
populous Continental cities and large towns. I have also
collected accounts of the comparative amount of crime at
home—that is to say, in London, Liverpool,
Manchester,
Dublin, Glasgow, Edinburgh, and the other principal
towns. These details, however, with respect to the
amount of crime, both at borne and abroad, may be
looked upon more as matters of curiosity, than as docu-
ments from which any fixed conchw.on.3 can safely be
drawn. I have, in the course of this morning, looked
into the work of Mr. Peyronnet, on the subject of the causes
and increase of crime in France. It is limited to the
year 1828, but it is drawn up in so admirable a form, and
the subject is so ably treated, that it is well Worthy the at-
tention of those who feel inclined to turn their attention
to such matters either in this House or in our Criminal
Courts. It enters minutely into details of the ages of the
criminals, the nature of their crimes, the place and time of

tuumo....ndisposed,va—ncrtl:piTls4l:d'.
.04 atiddistin' gilts' bes 5t I'DnlCIl teihne;LP eaggtrainer:t
sum pfie..p.esrt4tyt.e
of icsreimx7eidnindgilit:
ens .
4,
by
pfitls,trvlonrelieeab2di
ietdinan.hesai
adnl
tilthha,
otarreelzblhia,
ear
inflict
ttlipe u
nJi
suh
their es ,1 •
2
ll
t
tried and firuuts
the person from crimes ...
curious to observe the comparatin • `he •
crimes and
ferent districts. I this morning compare°
population of Paris with the crimes and 1301:0-'-'1.°n
of
Middlesex. The last census of the population of Paris Tea
taken in 1817 ; but I believe it is held upon
that between that period and the year 1820, the popula-
tion of Paris has not increased in any material degree. Ire
1817, the exact amount of the pepulation within the bar-
riers is stated to have been 657,152 :souls. Adding to same
the inhabitants of prisons, 48 militmey establishMiTts' 611'4
authority,
the occupiers of hotels (of which there &e 692 within the
barriers), there is an addition of 56,794, making the num-
ber amount to about 714,000 persons. Adding to these the
population in the environs amounting to 107,740 persons,
making the whole population amount to 821,706. In Parke
they have three clams of Criminal Tribunals. They leave
—first, the Cour d'Assizes, which takes cognizance seek. of
the higher description; secondly, they have the police
Correctional, which takes cognizance of a lighter character
gme9entdetoPtahieL extent olcofinvde
—and thirdly, they have the Common Police, which is
years' imprisonment, whereas the .Tugee de Paix can
not inflict punishment for more than five.dtys, or a
fine of more than from one to fifteen francs. It is not
easy, therefore, looking at the operation of these three tri •
bunals, to make a comparison between the relative degree
of crime in Paris and in London. In 1928, the number
of accused brought before the Conr d'Assizes amounted to
692 ; in 1824, the number amounted to 84f3; and. in
1825, to 804. So that, taking this average, we shall
y
eeeiextrapte andnernto sap.t
are
erf
populous
Tcipsoruohni
some
osol
ueefsijavi
extraordinary
aasithinlyrecoe rer comparisonord,paei
nnmei
property,
isottr
yhdiyutailssttotstatement
madecttet
soen;:oteernrnlittt
lan
pworepoierr-.
ence to the entire population of the Department of the
t
show the great difference which exists as to the nature as
of-
biatn'ecil districts---i.
Corsica, afeglcins;t9thoeene'rYr:Ofr'nen;.e.ewshagilaa,
Corsica, for instance—out of each hundred offeneefs,,,g4_ane
against the person, and 21 against property. This is is
very curious fact, but, it is not easy to draw any very de-
cisive conclusions from it. It does, however, appear, that.
where large bodies are congregated together, property is
most the object of attack; while in thinly peopled districts,
such as agricultural counties, offences arise principally ow,
of malicious feelings, and other motives of a personal na,
ture, and are for the greater part offences against the per-
son. In some part of France, the number of accused are ae
one in a thousand, while, in other parts of France, they
are one to 27,812. These are the extremes of crime 'it_
that country. I now turn to the population of Londoe
and Middlesex, and find that in 1821 they amounted t.
1,144,000; and, in the three years 1828, 1824, and
1525, the average criminal commitments were 2,700. or
one person in 123. Whereas, in the last two years, the
average of criminal commitments was 3,100, snaking our
of a population of 1,300,000 persons, one person in 880.
From this it would appear, that the comparison 1 hate
made is in favour of Paris ; but I do not believe that it :-
so in point of fact—because the returns of crime are nick
only from the highest criminal tribunals. If Hon. Mem-
bers looked to the numbers brought before the Police Col s
rectionnelle, they would perceive the difference. In 1820
there were no less than 4,432 persons brought before thn
tribunal, for such offences as combinations, swindling, de-
famation, and assaults. It also includes the offence of
simple theft, and of the number 1,206 were accused \of
this last offence. If I add this number to the 800 I have
already mentioned, it would make 2,000, which, in a po-
pulation of 821,000 persons, amounts to one person in 410.
So that, in point of fact, there is no material difference in
the comparative state of crime in London and Paris in the
years 1823, 1824, and 1825. Unfortunately, in the last
year, crime had considerably increased. Sir, I have
to beg pardon of the House for entering into, these details,
—(Cries of hear, hear. )—I am aware that they are subjects
more peculiarly fitted for the attention of the Committee:.
but upon a question of such importance, I trust I may be
permitted to furnish the House with all the information
can, in order to enable it to adopt a sounder system than.
exists at present upon this question. The objects which
propose for the consideration of the Committee, are the
causes of the increase of crime and the state of the Polies
of the metropolis. lam sure that the Noble Lord (John
Russell), who last year introduced one-branch of this sub-.
ject, would, if called upon, find it difficult at once to des
side upon the causes of the increase of crime at preseee,
For my own part, I consider that it is to be attrihuted
some measure to the exposed and insecure stet; in which
property is placed in many parts of the metropolis, and to
the facilities which are afforded of removing it from one
, part of the country to another--in a word, to the increased
means of committing cud concealing the commission of
an offence, as to the increased ingenuity of those who think
iproper to live by preying upon their neighbours. A person
who thinks proper to exercise his ingenuity in this, leas
braes opportunities of seizing on property than it owner
has of properly securing it. I must confess that lam not
very sanguine with respect to the benefits to be derived by
this Committee. I much fear that the Noble Lord who
took so active a part on a former occasion, and who, 1 hope
and trust, will again devote his time to the subject, will
find that the evils complained of have a much deeper root
than a want of employment.—(Hear, hear.)—lt will, 1,
have no doubt, be found that those evils are produced
different causes in different districts. In agricultural cone.-
ties, one cause of the increase of crime will he found to be
the Game Laws. This is a subject which no doubt calls
for inquiry; but the more I look into the subject the more
I feel convinced how unsafe it is to rely on any one caseeo
as the origin of the evils of which we complain. And sore
I ant, that any man who
elmrocToaelnih:%ey,eedoottthhaoa:ntrteltileLi
the evil
causes
sae,
snv
whiche mustL atvr Laws
te
pifras a
main cause of the increase of crime, would act under a de
lusion.—(Hear, hear, hear.4)--faiLreotb
jelleotnoofiiirnacibilleiryfi:erni:
ben look to the increase in counties which are not game
hcoshpe.eixsist. Let me ask for a peon; 1,
? It would c
country,
snaebt
rsoyuir telrti
willon crime,
also
imagineoA ,
My
oi‘icelvtnorosei:ml
dnmocoetraulii
ieigubsnssti
t, 'seta,
whlai
sennioaldnml otherlbdoteehotoketfno:tipclnwnowat
iduoiihlssletti
what effect the Game Laws can have upon the Increasenol
improveear those
laws
sl3;ts runte
tol ifawsrielddi done
such a thing, The existing system of Poor Laws, and the
pforiamadi cteo adoptedoperate ini
ns some
causing
tobff. thei
increase
ImlounchourtnablnetieFur
found that the practice adopted in some counties,
ianf
pndlagaldkmittil,inieoegnnut
I:tiaopgwtethohs ol e
pariahs
deficiencye
al
rabibaeohuferox ptne,nnic
ertt tobaoyi t
have
f \thei.seasonsse rpointt,Bonrod, fsaf-bitirlolailleti
et y,smehanaoinredede and_tiiiont
causing the increase of crime, and I have no doubt, the
dienadndn
Report of the Committee will strongly confirm this opinion
of mine. I doubt, however, whether this effect of the Pour
Laws will be found to have operated in this way in Lee,
don anti Middlesex ; on the contrary, 1 fear that the he
crease of crime in these, districts will be found to arise
from cause's upon which I fear to speculate, and upon
which it would, perhaps, be better that I should reserve
my opinions until an opportunity presents itself of en-
tering fully into the proposed inquiry. lam decidedly of
opinion, however, that we can, by a speedy inquiry, apply:
some remedy (though not a complete one), and the soonee
we set about that inquiry the better. An amendment
of the police system, although it cannot prevent
the evils we complain of, may yet go far towards correct-
ing them. But while I express this opinion, I must con_
fees that I despair of our being able to place our Polies
upon a general and equal footing of uniformity. I cannothope to take St. Paul's as a centre, and have a radius of
ten miles, in which our Police could be able to act in
unison. Let the House but consider for a -moment, that
the Metropolis consisted of three divisions—Southwark,
London, and Westminster; and that not a little jealousy
existed between them.—[Mr. Alderman Wood shock his
head.]—The Worthy Alderman shakes his head ; but, I.
ask him whether he is prepared to give up the privileges
claimed by the City of London on this subject ?--[Mr.
Alderman Wood said he was not.l—The Hon. Alderman
need not entertain the least fear. I mean not to propose
I any thing calculated to alarm him, or the City of London ;
my only object is to amend, as far as 1 ran amend,
the existing sYsteln.—(Hear,
hear, hear.)—We have at
present an efficient Police during the day, hut during
the night, when property is placed in the greatest state
of insecurity, we have, I may say, scarcely any protec-
tion at all. In the City of London, each Parish provides
its own watch, and it is clear that a nightly guard, so pro-
vided, must necessarily I.e an imperfect one. The Pa
rashes are anxious, and Nilo anxious, to act economically,
and to keep down their expenses in order to avoid kora-
sing their rates. But, sir, the nightly protection so pret
clued, is unequal to its object. Let Hon. Members look
for a moment to the enormous amount of buildings—to the
whole towns that have recently grown up in the environs
of this great Metropolis—the greater part, if not the
whole of which, have no provision made for the protec-
tion of a Police, or the jurisdiction of a Magistrate. Every
man who rides or drives in the environs of the Men opolie
must perceive this. And as to the administration of
justice, they had to rely, not on the protection of the ra•
lice, but upon such redress as they can obtain from those
Gentlemen who think proper to undertake the duties of
the commission of the peace. But in eome places indivi-