Star.
London, England, 1817-05-14 00:00:00

MISII CRIMINAL LAW.

Mr. PEEL called the attention of the House to a
subject which materially affected the administration
of Criminal Law in Ireland, in reference to the process
for the recovery of forfeited Recognizances. It was of
no use that the peace of that country was attempted
to be preserved by 'holding persons to bail or binding
parties to prosecute, if the security which was taken
for this object wet in fact a mere nullity. The vs-
treats or forfeited recognizances in Ireland for the
last seven years had been twenty-seven thousand
pounds alear ; or, in the seven years nearly two hun-
dred thousand poutas ; and he had ascertained that
not above one.third of the amount was collected, and
of that third the collectors had put a great part into
their own pockets. At one Assize three constables
forfeited ant less than nine hundred pounds. In the
King's County, in seven years, the amount estreated
was seven thousand five 'toothed pounds. and in those
seven years not one effort had been made to recover
the recognizances ; so that, whether a person was
bound as a witness, or to keep the peace, he had in
truth perfect impunity in violating his obligation. As
a proof of the effect this had had, he wools' quote
a letter from the Chairman of the Sessions of the
County, who said it was to little purpose that Quar•
ter Sessions were held, for recognizances were•treated
asidle forms. There were last Quarter Seasions one
hundred and eleven indictments; cut of which not
above twenty cr thirty of the parties appeared to pro-
secute; they compromised criminal mutters, and
. laughed at the process of the law. He thought he
bad said enough to them, that the law wanted vindi-
cating in Ireland. In looking for a remedy, to this
evil, lie must refer to the Law of England. He
should object to place the enforcement of fines in the
bands of the Grand Jury, for they themselves were
sometimes obnoxious to fines as Special Jurors. As
to Constables, they had shewn themselves unworthy
of the trust. lie proposed,/ theiefore, that the duty
of collecting fines should devolve on the office of

Sheriff, as in this country—(near,heat .) Therelwas'
another matter another measure connected with The
subject which he would now also advert to. Gentle-
men in Ireland objected to tlik: office of Sheriff. on
account of being held to a responsi•iility for their pre.
decessors. He should theret,re propose another Bill
to provide that each Sheriff shcarld be accountable
for himself only, and also to give to the Sheriff a
greater controul over his Sub-Sheriff, by an action
against him. In order to prevent the withholding
regular payment of forfeited reclgnizances ova to
the proper authorities, he should recommend, to im-
pose on those Sheriffs who did not account for their
receipts in proper time, certain penal consequences,
and make them liable to the payment of double inte-
rest for the time they so neglected to account. He
concluded by moving, that leave be given to bring in
a Bill to amend th•t law respecting forfeited Recog-
Murices in 11041,1—Wear.)
Sir JOHN NEWPORT expressed his satisfaction
at the proposed measure. It: thought Ireland in-
debted to the Right Hon. Gentleman for the part he
had taken in the business.--Leave was then giver.