at another, he had always thought it his duty to check the introduction of every such project and in one instance which he particularly remembered, where it had happened that a convict for a great of fence, in suffering the sentence of the law, was accidentally deprived of his life; on that occasion a gentleman of known humanity (Mr.Burke) proposed to change the mode of the punishment and make it death in future. He, at the time, repelled the project, and though he was satisfied that its having been proposed, arose from the most laudable motives, and that it was with a view to make the sentence of the law more lenient than it was, he had been then, as he now was, of opinion, that the judges were the persons with whom alterations of the conduct of criminal justice ought to originate. With regard to the present Bill, its object was not lenity but pure cruelty, and that without a prospect any advantage to the community, but a certainty of much serious disadvantage.

Having argued the first part of the Bill, his lordship proceeded to the second, viz. that of changing the punishment of women, convicted of high and petty treason, from burning to hanging. With respect to this, his objections were not so strong as they were to the former part, though he saw no great necessity for the alteration, because although the punishment, as a spectacle, was rather attended with circumstances of horror, likely to make a more strong impression on the beholders than mere hanging, the effect was much the same, as in fact, no greater degree of personal pain was sustained, the criminal being always strangled before the flames were suffered to approach the body; and this sentence, such as it was, was rarely inflicted, convicts being generally indicted on the other statutes, which made the convict subject to transportation only, and not death, so that burning for coining was not inflicted above once in half a century. As the Bill stood, however, petty treason was included, and the punishment was to be changed in that respect as well as the other, to which he was now ready to consent, as there were cases of petty treason, such as a wife's murdering a husband, and others of a like nature, of a very atrocious nature; and which called for a more exemplary punishment than other crimes. His lordship next recurred to his argument upon the first part of the Bill, and urged additional reasons in proof of its extreme objectionableness, besides

the indecent mode of its introduction, without the knowledge even, much less the approbation of the judges, whom it deprived of the power of exercising a discretion which called for exercise in many cases, particularly that of conviction for rape. A more enormous crime than a rape he scarcely knew; and yet frequent instances were to be found of convictions for rape, where the party accusing was notoriously a common prostitute. The law wisely made no distinction, and looked merely at the crime, and not the persons. Legally, therefore, where the charge was made on oath, and there occurred no means of disproving it, the person accused must necessarily be convicted of a capital offence; but would any man in his senses contend, that the case was the same with the conviction of a man charged with the rape of an innocent woman, a pure and spotless maiden, or a chaste and discreet matron, against whom no imputation of improper conduct could ever be sustained? Surely the instances were widely different, and every man must admit that the judge who, governed by the circumstances of the case and the characters of the accused and accusing, granted a respite, and got that respite followed with a pardon, made a wise exercise of his discretion. He concluded with moving, "That the order for the Bill, to be reported this day, be discharged," meaning, he declared, to follow it up with another motion, "that the report be made upon that day three months,"

Lord Sydney said, that the learned lord had discussed the subject with so much ability and force of argument, that he should not have troubled the House with a single word, had he not in one part of his speech appeared rather to speak to the views and designs of the gentleman who had originally introduced the Bill, than to the Bill itself. What he alluded to, was the learned lord's declaration, that the object of the Bill was founded in pure cruelty. This was an imputation so unmerited by the gentleman who introduced the Bill, that he could not suffer it to pass unnoticed. A more worthy, liberal, and humane man did not exist; and all who knew him, he was sure, would join with him in declaring, that if any individual was more averse from any thing like cruelty than another, that gentleman was the individual. Having thus rescued Mr. Wilberforce's character from what appeared to him to be a harsh imputation, his lord

might conceive, because the Bill had passed one stage on that day, that there was any intention to have smuggled it through the House. He himself had made many alterations in the committee, with a view, as the judges were summoned for the next day, to consult the judges as to their opi nions of the Bill. He was indifferent as to the fate of the Bill either one way or other. He approved of the greater part of the learned lord's arguments, but thought the learned lord mistaken in some few points which he mentioned.

ship declared that he concurred entirely with the learned lord, that all bills affecting the criminal justice of the country, ought to receive the approbation of the judges previous to their being proposed to parliament, and whenever he either had, or hereafter might have, any bill of that nature under his charge, he should always take the judges opinion whenever it could be obtained. With regard to the parts of the present Bill, to which the learned lord did not object, he should be glad if he would, in another session, assist in bringing in a bill founded upon them; and there was another Bill, which he also wished much for the learned lord's assistance in; a bill to discriminate the various and distinct crimes classed under the general head of burglary, and to apportion distinct punishments. He wished to have the distinction legally laid down, that the house-breaker, in the worst sense of the word, might not be encouraged in his excess of criminality, from hearing that the offender of the lesser species of guilt, though the crime was classed under the same name as his own, was pardoned.

Lord Loughborough answered, that when he remarked that the object of the Bill was pure cruelty, he meant to speak merely of the probable consequences of the Bill if it passed, and had no idea of imputing a bad motive to the author of it. On the contrary, he verily believed that he had the best intentions; but was not aware that the criminal justice of the country was too weighty a consideration to be lightly handled, or rendered the subject of a speculative project. With regard to the noble lord's suggestion on the subject of burglary, including a variety of crimes extremely distinct and disproportioned as to their degrees of enormity, the fact was undoubtedly true; and if a bill, which he did expect they would have heard of that session, a bill concerning the institution of a better police for the metropolis, had been brought forward, in all probability he should have taken the liberty of proposing some alterations in relation to the case in question. What he had in idea, was, to give the judges a discretional power of proportioning the punishment of convicts for burglary to the degree of criminality attending the particular case, and, under some circumstances, to discharge the convict immediately.

Earl Bathurst felt it necessary to trouble the House with a few words, in order that neither their lordships nor the audience

The question was put, and the order discharged; lord Loughborough then moved, "That the report be received upon that day three months," which was agreed to, nem. diss.

Debate in the Lords on the Crown Lands Bill.] On the order of the day for the third reading of the Crown Lands Bill,

Lord Loughborough began by calling the attention of the House to a Bill, which he stated to be of the first importance, but which, from the indecent hurry with which it was carried through, he perceived most of their lordships were equally unacquainted with, as he had been, till an accident brought to his knowledge, that such a bill was in existence. The day before, a gentleman had called upon him with the Bill in his hand, to ask this very extraordinary question: whether the private rights of individuals were protected? He had no difficulty in answering, that it was impossible they should be affected by any bill whatever, much less by a bill which bore inquiry only as its title. But much surprised was he indeed, when, upon reading the Bill itself, he found that not only private rights were disturbed, but the forms of Parliament violated, the decent respect due to his Majesty and the Royal Family transgressed, and the estate and rights of the Crown treated with less respect and attention, than by the forms of Parliament must have been paid to the claims of the meanest individual in passing a common turnpike bill. The Bill was now at its last stage; and, with so little ceremony had a subject of this importance been treated, that not even a printed copy of it had been laid before the House, and he was obliged to speak from a copy of the Bill which had been printed by the Commons, before it went into the committee. If, therefore, he mistook any part of the Bill, the circumstances in which it stood, would be,

or him, a sufficient apology, while at the same time, it would furnish a strong proof of the scandalous manner in which Parliament was treated, and of the indecent mode in which the rights and pro rties of the Crown and the royal family were disregarded and trampled upon. He begged leave to inform their lordships, that neither the title nor the preamble of the Bill, would give them any information with respect to its contents. The title was, to appoint commissioners to inquire into the state of the land revenue of the Crown; the preamble stated his Majesty's message, who had been graciously pleased to desire that such an inquiry should be made. Had the Act only carried into effect what was expressed in either the one or the other, he should merely have said, that it was idle and nugatory, and that the best mode in which the commissioners could execute their duty, would be to send to the different offices to desire that the surveys and other papers already prepared, should be laid before them. He could assure their lordships, that the estate of the Crown was as accurately, surveyed, as fully inquired into, and as carefully managed, as that of any private individual; but the contents of the Bill went infinitely beyond either its title, or his Majesty's gracious message. It vested in commissioners, who were not removeable by the Crown, an absolute power of sale of all rents of every description within the survey and receipt of his Majesty's Exchequer, accompanied with other powers of an extraordinary and dangerous nature. There was no reservation or exception of any of those rents, which had been, by the careful attention of former parliaments, cautiously prevented from being disposed of; at a time too, when the power of the Crown over its landed estate was almost unlimited. Even the ordinary officers of the Crown were put under the control of the commissioners; and the Crown itself, to which the decency of former parliaments had left the absolute and uncontrolled management of its landed estate, with regard to remissions, and all the numberless favours which flow from bounty and from kindness, was disgracefully put under the direction and management of the gentlemen appointed by the Act. He knew not these gentlemen, and he was willing to believe them as respect able as any of their friends could wish; but surely the Comptroller of the Navy, an able officer, colonel Call, an excellent

engineer, and governor Holdsworth, must have the first rudiments of the duty imposed upon them by this Bill, to learn. The powers given by this Bill, ought not to be given to any men, however respectable. No men were more respectable than those to whom the Derwentwater estate had been, in former times, entrusted, till their situation gave them opportunities and offered temptations which produced all the fraud which followed upon that business.-The first leading objection to the Bill was, that the estate of the Crown was directed to be sold, without any previous consent from his Majesty. No bill, by the usage of parliament, could ever be introduced into the other House, which, in the remotest manner, affected the estate of the Crown, without a consent was signified, previous to its introduction. In the present instance, his Majesty had been graciously pleased to desire an inquiry to be made, under the pretence of doing which, his estate was to be sold and disposed of, possibly without the knowledge, and certainly without the consent of the Crown. How so glaring an impropriety, such complete disrespect to the Sovereign, had escaped observation in the other House, he could not tell. It was impossible that their lordships could so far forget what they owed to their Sovereign, as to give their concurrence to a Bill, which differed so materially from its professed object, and which carried in it such a marked disrespect to that person to whom the highest respect and reverence were due. Nor was this all: his Majesty was not the only person concerned in the estate of the Crown; her Majesty and the Prince of Wales were also interested in it. Had any means been used to gain their assent to this Bill? It was reason sufficient to stop any bill affecting private property, that the consent of the persons interested in it had not been applied for. But it was not to the Crown alone that this Bill was iniquitous and unjust, it authorized a a sale of all rents of every description without any reservation whatsoever. It began with repealing two acts made in the reign of Charles 2.; and yet, in a subsequent clause, it so far kept in force those very acts, which the former clause had repealed and vacated. In the reign of Charles 2, a project was entertained by that prince of raising money by the sale of the fee-farm rents. The Crown at that time enjoyed as unlimited a power over its estates as any private individual; aliena

tion was guarded against only by the multitude of officers concerned in completing the act, and by the responsibility of ministers. In the execution of this project it was found necessary to come to e parliament; not for any new powers, but in order that the purchasers from the Crown might become entitled to the beneefit of the prerogative process, which they would not have otherwise been. Charles 2. conveyed his fee-farm rents to five trustees, who were to be instruments of the conveyance under the directions of the Treasury. But so cautious was the parliament of that day, before they would assist the Crown in an alienation, which it had a power to make, that, with much wisdom, they expressly stipulated for certain descriptions of rents, which should not be sold. These were quit-rents and copyhold rents belonging to any manor; first fruits and tenths, and rents reserved nomine decimæ payable to any ecclesiastical person; rents allowed to any school, hospital, or other pious or public use; rents which had not been brought in charge for forty years; rents payable to the Queen, and rents payable to his Majesty, or the Prince, arising out of the principality of Wales. Quit rents and copyhold rents, and rents incident to a reversion in the Crown, were not to be sold, because in many cases the manors and rents were under lease. The sale of the reversionary interest was at all times bad, nor could the rents be separated from the manors, or from the reversions to which they were incident, without destroying the remedy for their recovery, and in some cases destroying the thing to be sold. All such rents were to be sold by the present Bill.-First fruits and tenths were now, indeed, specially appropriated to the increase of small livings; but rents payable to the clergy nomine decimæ still remain, and are usually, if not constantly, given to them for charitable purposes. All these, as well as those which the piety and bounty of our sovereigns had usually given to public or pious purposes, were, by Charles 2's parliament, preserved from sale, but are by the present Bill to be all disposed of, without any regard to the purposes to which they are employed. The caution of that parliament too, for the ease of the subject, prevented the sale of such rents as had not been brought in charge for forty years, in order to prevent individuals from being harassed by adventu

rous purchasers searching out and buying up dormant titles. No such care was paid to the interest of the subject by the present Act; every rent or claim not cut off by the nullum tempus Act, whether put in charge for forty years or not, may be sold to every hunter for dormant titles. The rents payable to the Queen, and those payable out of the principality of Wales, although the beneficial interest for the time was in the Prince, fell under the description of this Bill, as being under the survey of the Exchequer, and might be disposed of by the commissioners. It was well known, that the Welsh revenue, though considerable, was inadequate to the charges upon it; it was known, too, that there was scarcely an estate in the principality, out of which something was not paid or claimed. It was equally known that many rents had particular charges upon them yet; all were to be disposed of without regard to the dignity of the person to whom they were paid, the sacredness of the use to which they were appropriated, or the public utility of the purpose to which they were applied. And here their lordships would perceive the concealed purpose for which the Act of Charles 2. was repealed; the extravagance of former times had left no rents in the Crown, which could be disposed of, but those reserved by these acts: to get at these rents the acts were repealed; but the object was cautiously concealed, because it was no less scandalous than the manner of attaining it was indecent. The authority given to the commissioners was equally new and extraordinary. They were directed to take means for the redressing abuses in the management of the landed estate of the Crown: the estate of the Crown was as completely known and managed as that of any individual; if abuses existed, they must exist either in remissions of rents, or the alleviating of fines, or the dispensing with oppressive services, the remains of feudal tyranny. Such was the decency of the Act of the 1st of his present Majesty, by which the revenues of the landed estate of the Crown were directed to be carried to the aggregate fund, that the complete, absolute, and uncontrolled management of it was left to the Crown. By the present Bill, the ordinary officers appointed by the Crown were superseded by commissioners, members of Parliament, who were not to be removable by the Crown for four years; who were to ransack every branch of the T

management of the royal estate, and to inquire why this remission, why that fine was not exacted, why this oppressive service was not requested? A power so degrading to royalty ought not to be invested in any hands. Much had been said upon a former occasion of the appointment of officers not removable by the Crown in a case where direct necessity called for it. How was it to be justified in the present instance?-Nor less censurable was a clause of the Bill, which gave the commissioners a power to examine witnesses on oath, and send for papers of every description wherever they might be. This was a power to send for every nobleman's steward, and order him to bring with him the writings of his master's estate.

Earl Bathurst here said, that this was altered, and confined to papers in any public office.

Lord Loughborough observed, that this was only another proof of the indecent manner in which Parliament was treated. He then proceeded to animadvert upon that clause which gives the Court of Exchequer a power, upon motion only, to issue a commission to examine the boundaries of the estate of the Crown, which formerly could only be done by an information of intrusion filed by the Attorney General. This he stated as a power given to harass every individual whose estate bordered upon that of the Crown, in a summary way, without the usual and ancient forms of law. He next took notice of the clause which prohibited the cutting any wood upon the estate of the Crown, without the consent of the commissioners, as destructive to grants already made to individuals, who in many cases had a right to cut; and concluded with recalling the attention of the House to the point with which he began; the gross impropriety of authorizing a sale of the estate of the Crown, without even the pretence of its consent. He conjured the House not so far to forget the respect due to Majesty, not so far to forget what was due to themselves, as to pass such a bill, so full of more than usual inaccuracies, at a season of the year when business was shamefully crowded upon the House. He asked, if the numberless bills which lay on their lordships table were like the acts of men who could call themselves a government? He declared, that if this Bill should pass, he would, by exercising his right of protest, vindicate himself from the indecency and disgrace of it; and if upon any oc

casion he could be brought to give advice, where advice never ought to be given unasked, he thought the present a bill where his Sovereign ought to be advised to use the prerogative which he possessed, of saying to the Bill, "he would be better advised."

Earl Bathurst said, he could venture to affirm, that he knew the Bill perfectly well, and, if he understood it at all, the powers which it gave were as innocent as any powers could be, since it was merely to authorize commissioners to inquire into the rights of the Crown respecting the Crown lands and forests; for which purpose it vested them with a power to call for leases, grants, titles, &c. The measure was by no means new and unprecedented. Exactly such a bill had passed two years ago, respecting the sale of the rents of the Duchy of Lancaster. He declared that he was not aware that it was necessary, in bills of that nature, that his Majesty's consent should be expressly stated. There was no standing order for it whatsoever; and the Royal Message implied, that the two Houses were to proceed to do that with respect to the Crown lands which should to them appear most for the public benefit. As to the second part of the Bill, that, in his mind, referred only to those small and remaining rents undisposed of under the Act of Charles 2. With regard to the rights of subjects entitled already to cut the timber on the royal forests, the Bill did not in the smallest degree affect them. He for one had such a right, and he should make no scruple to exercise it on the day after the Bill should become a law, as freely as he did at that time.

The House divided: Contents, 14 ; Proxies, 14: Not-Contents, 11; Proxies, 7.

Protest against the Crown Lands Bill.] The following Protest was entered on the Journals:

Dissentient for the following reasons: 1. "Because the provisions of the Bill are extended to an object not disclosed in the title, and the preamble not expressed in his Majesty's most gracious Message, on which the Bill professes to be founded; an inquiry to be made into the state and condition of the woods, forests, and land revenues belonging to the Crown, is the only purpose set forth in the title and preamble; his Majesty's Message authorizes no more; yet the Bill proceeds to a sale of certain parts of the land revenue belong.