details, they ought not to be subject to the charge of having been bullied into the change; and he hoped they should still enjoy the esteem of the people, although the hon. gentleman had, in no very elegant terms, pronounced them to be a government not worth two-pence.

He should have thought, that the avowed | average of its price, and of that of oats, for principles of the hon. member would have six years, and found that he had not asinduced him rather to applaud than blame sumed the true proportions. He then did, the government. He should have thought what every honest man ought to do, conthat the advocate of free discussion and fessed himself in error. He had taken the democratic principles would have admired proportions which were thought, for forty the readiness with which ministers con- years past, to be the correct ones; and, in fessed themselves in the wrong, and the so taking them, was only to be accused of alacrity with which they took what they taking for granted, what he ought rather thought the right path. The hon. gentle- to have inquired into. He found, accordman said, that this right path had not ing to the returns, that wheat was 56s., been chosen from any attention to the barley 31s., and oats 20s. 6d. Taking wishes of the people, but from the threats wheat, therefore, at 60s., no just charge which had been held out by a party in that could be brought against the government, House, which was above the people. if they took barley at the price now proAnother hon. member had gone further posed. If, indeed, out of deference to a and had candidly told them, that minis- large minority, ministers had been induced ters had been bullied into this change. It to abandon the principle with which they would be sufficient, he thought, to put it to started, and had recurred to prohibitions, the candour of the House, whether minis- they would have justly incurred the charge ters had acted from these motives, or from a of inconsistency. But, surely, for a moconviction, that, in framing the original re-dification, not of the principle, but of the solutions, they had been proceeding upon mistaken views. He should, however, call the recollection of the House to what passed on the night when his right hon. friend submitted to them the principles on which government intended to proceed; which were, a free intercourse in grain, subject to controlling duties. On that very night several hon. members having approved of the rate at which wheat was to be taken, gave it as their opinion, that barley and oats were not sufficiently protected. The first reply his right hon. friend gave to this was, "This is matter of detail, concede me the principle, and afterwards we will arrange the details." There was, therefore, no ground for accusing the government of inconsistency. The question was merely-Was this or was it not a sufficient protection for the home barley-grower, and was the resolution of the 1st instant right or wrong? The government had thought that barley was not sufficiently protected by that resolution; and it, therefore, became its imperative duty, even at the expense of confessing itself wrong, to raise the protection on that grain to a due proportion with that on wheat. He should not dwell on the evils to which an undue protection of any particular grain would lead, as every gentleman must be sensible how much such a circumstance would hamper agricultural proceedings. His right hon. friend having learned from members of that House, that barley was not sufficiently protected by his resolutions, took the

General Gascoyne complained of the awkward situation in which this vacillating conduct of ministers placed members, who had written down to their constituents, that the question was settled upon a certain basis, and had now to contradict their former report. He should vote for the original proposition.

Mr. W. Ward said, he should vote against this new proposition. When the original resolution was laid on the table he had voted for it, as he took it to be a peaceoffering from ministers to the people; and he was averse from stirring up animosities between the two interests. But he would not, on any pretence, suffer an encroachment on the original proposal, as it would lead to consequences not foreseen. This increase upon barley would affect wheat and every other grain; as it would induce the farmer to cultivate a greater quantity of one grain than he otherwise would do.

Sir T. Lethbridge said, that with respect to what had been said concerning the price at which barley and oats were to be admitted, it was certainly understood, that that was a point reserved for discussion; and he would undertake to say, that although ministers had found themselves strong enough to carry the wheat proposi→

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, March 13.

CRIMINAL LAWS CONSOLIDATION BILLS.] Mr. Secretary Peel rose, and addressed the House to the following effect:

liament; I have retained all those terms and legal designations which are allowed to be of importance; but, in rejecting some redundancies and repetitions, I have endeavoured to steer a middle course between the general verbosity of our English statutes, and the extreme brevity of the I rise, Sir, to introduce certain bills French criminal code. This House has for consolidating and amending the laws always shown itself extremely jealous of in England, relative to Larceny and other laws so very summary in their enactments, offences. The bill I have now brought up as those of the French code; because they -one of those bills at least is for the necessarily devolve upon the judge who consolidation of some of the branches of administers them, a much greater discrethe statute and criminal law concerning tionary power than our own system protheft. Probably the House will allow fesses to do. In point of fact, Sir, nothing me to make a few observations, at this is gained by the adoption of extreme breopportunity, in answer to some questions vity in the framing of acts of parliament, which were put to me, by a noble lord I will venture to say, that the French have on a former night, on matters con- experienced this truth, from the extreme nected with these bills; which ques-brevity of their laws, and the circumstance tions I was not then prepared entirely of their enactments being couched in to answer. I beg to state, therefore, terms much too summary. The conse that the bills which I have to bring in this quence has been, that the gloss or comevening, are four in number. First of all, mentary of the learned lawyers of that here is a bill consolidating the whole of country, defining the meaning and scope the statute law of England, relating to of these summary terms, has already atthe crime of larceny and other offences tained an extent, which, in point of verconnected therewith; the second is a bill boseness and complexity, bids fair to rival for the consolidation of all the laws re- our own Statute-book. In the bills I have lating to malicious injuries committed on the honour of submitting to the House, a property; the third is a bill relating middle course has been steered between to the very important question of dama- the redundancy of our own legal enactges arising from accident, and the cases ments, and the conciseness of the French in which the law will enable parties, code. I do confidently hope, that when who sustain such damages, to recover a little further advance has been made in from the hundred; the fourth is a bill, the work of repealing many of our old Sir, which I have purposely kept distinct statutes, which should no longer be refrom the other three, and which will tained, and in the substitution of new recite and repeal all the now existing ones in their place, the House will deterstatutes, that, should these bills pass into mine to take into its consideration the a law, will become unnecessary. The general state of the whole Statute-book; effect of these enactments, supposing they when, I am convinced, it will find a vast should meet the sanction of the legislature, number of old or defective statutes, which will be to remove, altogether, from the it might determine to expunge, while it Statute-book no less than one hundred could retain those only which it may be and thirty statutes, And I have the satis- absolutely necessary to preserve. The faction of stating, that, notwithstanding effect of such a proceeding would be the repeal of so many acts of parliament, evinced in many valuable and beneficial now forming part of the criminal law of results. I think there ought to be a comEngland, the whole of the statute laws in mission to ascertain what statutes at prethis consolidated form-those, I mean, sent remain in force, and what from their respecting the crime of theft-will be obsoleteness, or the fact of their being no comprised within twenty-nine pages [hear]. longer applicable to the circumstances In effecting this reduction in the bulk of the age, might be entirely dispensed and number of the statutes, I have made with, or preserved only for the future inno rash experiments as to the language of spection of the curious. Some statutes, the enactments I propose to substitute in like those of Magna Charta, for example, their stead. I have adhered, very closely, will always be retained, and treated, of to the phraseology of those acts of par- course, with the respect and gratitude that

are due to them. But others, though of perty has been so obtained under false great antiquity, are of such a character, pretences, which shall visit the offender that it would be exceedingly expedient to with an adequate punishment. For exget rid of them altogether. I am confident, ample, you shall charge a person who has that the fact of my being able to repeal procured some valuable goods under false by these bills, one hundred and thirty pretences with a misdemeanour; and his statutes, and to compress all that it is offence will immediately be, that he has necessary to retain of them, or to substi- committed a felony: so that he will plead tute for them, into twenty-nine pages, the greater offence, because, in this case, will ultimately tend to an immense reduc- the punishment is less, or the conviction tion in the bulk of our Statute-book.- more difficult. Such was the state of our I omitted to state, on a former occasion, statute law, at present, that this anomaly some alterations, or, if the House will absolutely existed in it. If a purchaser, permit me to designate them by such a under a false and fraudulent pretence of name, some improvements, which I have purchase, get possession of property, he introduced into one of these bills-that is indicted for a misdemeanour; if he be which regards the offence of Larceny. indicted for getting possession of such The amendments I propose will have the property, under pretence of hiring, that effect, as the House will see, of reducing is larceny. If he be indicted for this the number of capital punishments by law. offence, upon a case, where it appears Under the law of burglary, as it stands at that he got possession of the property present, if the burglary be committed in before the negotiation for the purchase any out-house, which forms part of the was completed, his offence is larceny. frontage, that is part of that which, in But if the purchaser under false pretenlaw, is entitled an outer-fence, the burglary ces be not tried until after he has got is a capital offence. If it be committed absolute possession of the property, then in the stable or the dairy, or within that the English law charges his offence as a which, in the old language of the law is misdemeanour; so that if he gets possescalled "curtilage," the burglar is placed sion absolutely, his offence is misdemeain the same situation. I venture to believe, nour; or if he hath obtained either a however, that no person who maturely temporary or partial possession only, it considers this subject would advise that is felony; and, as you cannot indict him a burglary, consisting of the breaking into both for the felony and misdemeanour at a cow-house, or stable, or dairy, should be once, you are subject to be defeated, even visited with a severity equal to that which in the clearest case, in your attempt to this species of offence, under more aggra- obtain a conviction against him, on an invated circumstances as in the case of dictment either for the one offence or the breaking into a dwelling-house-is subject other. This is especially true, if you to. I propose, therefore, that burglary, charge him with the misdemeanor. by breaking into a stable, or even into an you cannot prove against him the "animus out-house, shall not be included in the furandi," at certain periods of the transclass of burglaries, for which capital pu- action, you cannot convict him at all; nishment shall be assigned by the law; he pleads to the felony, and your aim is unless in cases where there shall be some defeated. Now, the object of the man in communication between the actual dwell- either case being the same-namely, to ing and that part of the premises which cheat; common sense prescribes the shall have been broken into, by a covered object of the law, which should be, in passage, or a window, common to both of either case, to restrain and punish him. them. Another important alteration I It can hardly be contended, that that is a have suggested, for the purpose of reme- sound state of law in which, if you hold a dying a great defect which exists in the man guilty of a misdemeanour, he shall law of England, as it at present stands, in be liable to punishment; if guilty of ferespect to offences against property, com-lony, you shall be unable, in effect, to mitted under false pretences. Nothing punish him. The noble lord, the member can be imagined more ineffectual than the for Northamptonshire, asked me a queslaw of England at present is, with respect tion the other night, in relation to the to crimes of this nature; and nothing Malicious Trespass act. That, of course, more hopeless, I may add, than the at-like many other laws relating to offences tempt to obtain a conviction, where pro-against property, I have made such an