66 But we must close our remarks on this painful subject. We observe with great satisfaction, that Lord Melbourne has not hesitated at once to meet the justifiable homicide verdict of the coroner's jury by the proclamation of a reward of 100%. for the discovery of the author of the policeman's death, designating the act at the same time by its proper name, of a murder. We trust the murderer will yet be found, and dealt with as he richly deserves. Meanwhile we have endeavoured to perform our own duty by joining our voice to that of the respectable part of the press on both sides of politics, in reprobating the deplorable proceedings which have grown out of his crime, and exposing both the absurdity and the fatal tendency of this ignorant and thoughtless verdict. We are well aware that there are some of the organs of public discussion, which hold a very different language on the subject from that which we have employed, and profess to take nearly the same view of it with the coroner's jury. It may be very natural that they should. How, for example, could we expect such a paper as The Despatch to speak in any other than a tone of triumph and congratulation of the murder of one of those policemen whom (notwithstanding that it is the property of an alderman of London and a magistrate, bound by his office and his oath to exert himself to his utmost in the maintenance of civil order) it rarely fails, once a week, either in its own columns, or by puffing placards of its contents, posted over the town, to denounce as brutes and savages? In a cause like this, we do not reckon upon support from such a quarter. Neither, in the remarks which we have made, we beg to say, do we address ourselves, with any hope of being favourably heard, to the seventeen jurymen upon whose conduct we have felt it necessary so freely to comment. They have been solicited by the Times to reconsider their verdict; but, for our own part, we shall not trouble them with any such useless request. The mischief they have done must be mended by other hands than theirs. They have heard the shouts of the mob, and they may hear them again. The bakers' windows of Paris are all barred and grated, because in the days of tumult, especially in the revolution, the bakers were peculiarly objects of plunder. Our bakers' windows are not barred, because the rights of property are better protected by the moral strength of the people themselves. Six of these jurymen are bakers. If their shops are ever plundered, they will perhaps "reconsider their verdict." swears not only to what did happen, but to what, in certain | lettos, and other formidable weapons, which were captured given circumstances, would have happened. "I do," says by the police. he," upon my oath, say, that if the police had not interfered there would have been no disturbance." If you had had a stick with you," asks one of the jurors, "would you have resented the blow?" " Certainly," replies the valiant solicitor, "I would have cut the head off the man who gave it." So at least it stands in the newspapers. This legal opinion seems to have made a great impression on the jurors, one of whom afterwards refers to it in justification of the verdict. To witnesses of this description, the demeanour of the jury is all approbation and encouragement. No remark is made, or question asked, except what has a tendency to adjust and reconcile the different parts of the testimony. But such as depose to the violence of the mob receive very different treatment. On the first day's examination, Mr. Baker, the superintendent of police, was forced to complain that the questions were put so rapidly to him, as to make it impossible for him to answer them, and that he was tried rather than examined. On the next day, when the long staves headed with pikes, known by the name of Maceronis, which had been captured by the police, were produced, a juror, casting his eye on the armoury of insurrection, coolly remarked, that there did not appear to be any thing very formidable in the weapons. The business of the fourth and last day commenced with the examination of Mr. John Jeffery, cabinet-maker, a most intelligent witness. After giving an account of a violent harangue made to the mob by Mr. Stallwood, Mr. Jeffery added, The people again collected to the amount of three hundred, taking courage, as I presumed, at the moment, from what Mr. Stallwood said." "Do you admit this as evidence, Mr. Coroner?" immediately exclaimed the foreman; "the witness is stating something that he presumed." Mr. Stirling said it was certainly not evidence. But it was at least as good evidence as Mr. Goore's declaration of what would have happened if the police had not interfered, which we have noticed above-or indeed as many parts of the evidence favourable to the other side of the question, which were received with avidity. Again, a little lower down, we find the foreman aiming at the witness one of his heavy sarcasms, in the remark, "You have given a very elaborate description of the scuffle between the flag-bearer and the policeman; pray, how long did it occupy?" Then because Mr. Jeffery had described the flag-bearer, after stabbing the policeman, as having run forward for a little distance in a stooping position, with his hands upon his head, a juror chooses to ask, with a sneer of incredulity, how that could be. Another, immediately after, contends that it is impossible for a near-sighted person to tell that a coat had a velvet collar, without being at the same time able to distinguish its colour to a certainty-a position which, in regard at least to certain colours, is manifestly absurd. In the same style is the following scene, which is stated to have occurred the first day on the examination of Flack, a policeman. "The foreman.-You seem to have had plenty of room and time to observe the dress and stature of these men. Pray, why did you not take them into custody? Witness.-We could not, Sir; there was great confusion at the time: and it happened, that in that confusion, I and my comrade were left behind by the rest of the force, and against such unequal odds, we had no power to apprehend the two men. The foreman.-Why, there were two of you, and only two of them, according to your account? Witness.-You don't seem to understand me, Sir. The whole mob was against us. Foreman.-How then is it that you could observe their dress and stature with so much seeming accuracy?" The stupidity of this defies, and does not require, comment. After all, only nine witnesses seem to have come forward to swear that they had been actually attacked by the police, and among these were several who were only slightly hurt. There was not a woman among the number, notwithstanding the numbers of females, old and young, whom some of the witnesses declared they saw knocked down and otherwise ill-used. If we suppose the casualties to have been even twice or thrice as numerous as this evidence would indicate, still the amount does not seem greater than might have been calculated on in the case of a collision with a multitude of 4000 people. On the other hand, we have one policeman killed, two others stabbed, and many more struck with brick-bats and bludgeons. The ruffianly intentions of many of the mob are also incontrovertibly established by the revolutionary flags, the pikes, and Maceronis, the sti PUBLIC PETITIONS. THE Nineteenth Report of the Committee for the Classifi cation of Petitions has been published, and we proceed to give our abstract; but, as great part of what we have hitherto enumerated under the head of Miscellaneous occupies a large space, without possessing a corresponding interest, we have on the present occasion only given the number of petitions and the amount of signatures contained in the last eight reports, without detailing their particular objects. In the other classes the number of petitions and the amount of signatures include all that have been presented since the commencement of the session, except where stated to the contrary. Parliamentary. Against the septennial act Ecclesiastical. the Church of Scotland Against tithes in England In favour of ditto Against church temporalities bill (Ireland) No. of No. of Signs. 12 7,420 33 18,876 8 2,281 43,327 Carnarvon borough-O. J. E. Nanney declared unduly elected, and the return ordered to be amended with the name of Sir C. Paget. Sir C. Paget was originally returned, and had been previously unseated on a petition from Mr. Nanney. In our last number we stated this petition had been abandoned, but there was a second petition to the same effect which was overlooked. Clonmell-Election affirmed. Coleraine Sir J. P. Beresford declared unduly elected, and the return ordered to be amended with the name of W. T. Copeland. Dover-Election affirmed. Galway county-Election affirmed. Galway town-L. Maclachlan declared unduly elected, and the return ordered to be amended with the name of M. J. Blake. Limerick city-Election affirmed. Lincoln city-Election affirmed. Linlithgow county-Election affirmed. Montgomery borough (new election of Colonel Edwards petitioned against)-Committee sitting. Salisbury city-W. Wyndham declared unduly elected, and the return ordered to be amended with the name of the Hon. D. P. Bouverie. Tiverton borough-Election of J. Kennedy declared void. Warwick borough-Election of Sir C. J. Greville declared void, and that gross bribery had prevailed on the part of his agents. The issuing of the writ has been suspended. ABSTRACT OF PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS. Population of Ireland.-Return of the population of the several counties in Ireland, as enumerated in 1821 and 1831. [N.B. The return of 1821 was very imperfect, in consequence of many places forwarding no returns. In Carlow, for instance, out of 61 places there were ten which made no return, and in Meath 70 omitted out of 229. Similar omissions, varying in their extent, prevail throughout all the counties. In 1831, there appears to be scarcely any instances of similar neglect.] Armagh Cavan Donegal Down Fermanagh Londonderry Monaghan Tyrone CONNAUGHT. Galway town Leitrim Mayo Roscommon Sligo The cities and towns which are given separately, are so returned as being counties in themselves. Brewers. The following is an account of the number of brewers, licensed victuallers, and persons licensed to retail beer in England, with the number of the two latter classes who brew their own beer; the number of brewers and licensed victuallers in Scotland, and of brewers in Ireland; and the total quantity of malt used by each class, in the year ending Jan. 5, 1833. England.-Brewers in London 108, in the country 1645, total, 1753; licensed victuallers, in London 4391, of whom 22 brew their own beer; in the country 46,405, of whom 24,271 brew their own beer; persons licensed to retail beer in London 1017, of whom 129 brew; in the country 29,900, of whom 12,973 brew. The quantity of malt used was, by brewers, 13,891,851 bushels; by licensed victuallers, 8,898,789 bushels; and by persons licensed for the general sale of beer, 3,093,519 bushels. Scotland.-Brewers, 216; licensed victuallers, 17,070, of whom 318 brew their own beer. The quantity of malt used was, by brewers, 893,901 bushels, and by licensed victuallers, 96,505 bushels. Ireland.-Brewers, 216. Quantity of malt used, 1,543,265 bushels. The number of barrels of beer exported during the same period was, from England, 65,268, from Scotland, 28544, from Ireland, 2024; total, 70,136; on which was allowed a drawback of duty to the amount of 17,5347. 38. 9d. Hops. The total number of acres of land in Great Britain under the cultivation of hops, in 1832, amounted to 47,101; the total amount of duty for the same period was 241,7717. 18. t Malt. In the year ending Oct. 10, 1832, there were manufactured in England 4,122,590 qrs. of malt, on which a duty of 17. 8s. was levied, producing the sum of 4,260,0107. 3s. 8d.; in Scotland, during the same period, 370,530 qrs. of malt were manufactured from barley, at the same duty, and 93,623 qrs. from bigg, at a duty of 16s., being a total of 464,1524 qrs. of malt, and producing the sum of 457,7797. 168.; in Ireland, 221,304 qrs. were made from barley, and 37,779 from bigg, at the above duties, being a total of 259,084 qrs. of malt, and producing the sum of 258,905l. Os. 1d. The total number of quarters in the United Kingdom was 4,845,828, and the duty levied amounted to 4,976,6947. 19s. 9d. In the same period were used in distillation, in England, 22,561 qrs.; in Scotland, 328,329 qrs.; and in Ireland, 89,866 qrs., being a total of 440,756 qrs. Corn. The importation of corn into Great Britain in the year ending Jan. 5, 1833, was, of wheat and wheat flour 463,592 quarters, 5 bushels; of other corn, 177,534 quarters, 7 bushels. The amount of duty received in the same period has been, for wheat and wheat flour 264,7047. 18s. ; for other corn and meal, 45,3187. 5s. 6d. The average prices of corn in Great Britain, in the year 1832, were, barley, per quarter, 33s. 1d.; beans, 35s. 4d.; oats, 20s. 5d.; pease, 378.; rye, 34s. 7d.; wheat, 58s. 8d. able, but it is, we think, the best that could be adopted. To call upon the country, or the county, to pay the expense of counsel for every prisoner, would certainly be carrying philanthropy for delinquents very far indeed. At all events, we would not begin by the adoption of this principle. If any case should occur, in which there was reason to apprehend that the prisoner was likely to suffer hardship or oppression from not being able to procure the aid of counsel, there can be little doubt that public benevolence would always be ready to come forward with the necessary assistance. If, after a trial of this scheme, it was found that few prisoners obtained the advantage which the law intended to allow them, the expediency of purchasing the services of counsel in all cases might then be taken into consideration. In point of fact, however, counsel are very often employed by prisoners; but one great advantage of their employment is denied to the prisoner. An argument which Mr. Justice Blackstone brings forward is, that the judge is the prisoner's counsel. Now, certainly, no other feeling can be attributed to the judges than the desire to deliver the innocent and punish the guilty. But it does not seem to be the strict duty of a judge to act as counsel either on the one side or the other. Nor does he in truth ever do so. The business of a counsel is to represent his client's case in the most favourable light which his ingenuity can enable him to do. There would be an unfairness in this, if there were no other counsel to do the same for the opposite side. This is precisely the unfairness which is charged against the present mode of trying indictments for felony; for although, in most cases, the counsel for the crown exercises his exclusive privilege with great caution, the truth might be expected to be more clearly brought out by a contest between the counsel. The duty of the judge is to look with the same impartial consideration to both sides, and not to allow more force to what tells for the prisoner than to what tells against him. It has also been said that prisoners are sufficiently protected by the preliminary inquiry before the committing magistrate, and by the intervention of the grand jury. This however, seems more than doubtful; for a large proportion of prisoners annually indicted are acquitted, notwithstanding these fences against undue accusations. During the seven years ending with 1831, out of 121,518 persons committed for trial, while 85,257 were convicted, no fewer than 23,442 were acquitted. The remainder were not brought to trial at all. COUNSEL TO PRISONERS. ACCORDING to the present practice of our law, a prisoner, charged with felony, as is well known, is not allowed on his trial to have the aid of counsel to address the jury in his defence. The only exception is in cases of treason, for which provision has been made by a special statute. On all other indictments, the prisoner's counsel can only examine and cross-examine the witnesses, and speak on points of law that may arise; he cannot address the jury on the general question of the prisoner's guilt or innocence, nor even explain to them, however ill-qualified his client may be for doing so himself, the answer which he has to make to the charge. It is left to the prisoner himself, who is in most cases an uneducated man, and often additionally embarrassed by the feeling, enough to shake the strongest minded, that his life hangs on the issue of the trial,-to watch and sift the evidence, to detect the points of it that make most for his acquittal, and in a formal speech both to arrange these in the most advantageous and lucid order, and to rebut the unfavourable presumptions which other circumstances may have raised. Meanwhile, on the side of the prosecution, counsel has been permitted both to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to address the jury. There is some reason for believing that in very ancient times the rule which thus denies to one side of the question the advantages which are granted to the other did not obtain in the practice of our courts; and several attempts have been recently made to do away with it as un-replied, that the time of the judges being the property of the reasonable and unfair. In 1828, the present Lord Melbourne, then Mr. Lamb, brought a bill into the House of Commons to effect this object, which however was afterwards withdrawn. This session the subject has been again taken up by Mr. Ewart, the member for Liverpool. A bill introduced by this gentleman has been read a first time, and stands for a second reading on the 5th of June. It provides that in future," on all trials for felonies, whensoever any counsel learned in the law, being then of counsel for the prosecution of such felony, shall have called his witnesses on the matters of fact in furtherance of such prosecution, the person or persons so prosecuted shall be admitted to make his, her, or their answer and defence thereto, and to state his, her, and their case, by counsel learned in the law; any The QUARTERLY SUPPLEMENT to the COMPANION to the NEWSPaper. law, custom, or practice to the contrary notwithstanding." It is proposed that the counsel for the prosecution shall not be allowed to reply to the address of the prisoner's counsel, except when evidence has in addition been produced on the part of the prisoner. This is the same rule which is observed in civil suits. In answer to the reasons which have been urged, for thus giving to prisoners charged with felonies the same legal aid in making their defence which is allowed to defendants in civil actions, various objections have been raised; but none, in our opinion, of much force. Perhaps the strongest is derived from the difficulty of dealing with the cases of those numerous prisoners who are too poor to employ counsel. Mr. Ewart's bill proposes to meet this difficulty, by enacting that whenever the person prosecuted is without the means of retaining counsel, the judge may, with the consent of any barrister, assign him to conduct the defence, without fee or reward. This plan is not, perhaps, perfectly unobjection Lastly, it is apprehended that the allowing of counsel to address the jury for the prisoner, would occasion trials to be so protracted, that there would scarcely be time to get through the business of the court. But to this it may be public by whom they are paid, the ease of the judicial bench ought not to be taken into consideration in the decision of the question; and that if more judges are necessary, more ought to be appointed. Justice must not be left undone for the sake of this expense. We may observe, in conclusion, that prisoners are not by the present practice allowed copies of the depositions against them before the committing magistrate. These they ought surely to be furnished with in every case; and we trust the attention of the Secretary of State will shortly be directed to this subject. On the 1st of July will be published, THE POOR LAWS. LONDON:-CHARLES KNIGHT, PALL-MALL EAST. Birmingham, Drake. Bath, Simms. Bristol, Westley & Co. kester. Carlisle,Thurnam& Scott. Devonport, Byers Rees. | Nottingham, Wright C. Watts. Dublin, Wakeman. Printed by WILLIAM CLOWES, Stamford-street. THE TO BE CONTINUED MONTHLY. No. 6. JULY 1, 1833. PAGE 89 81 Abolition of Imprisonment for Debt 91 83 Combinations Public Petitions 86 Post-Office Arrangements with 87 France. 92 93 93 88 Abstracts of Parliamentary Papers 94 STATE OF CRIME IN GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND. Price 2d. aspect to the official exposition of it. It is certain, for instance, that of the offences committed in this country, a considerably larger proportion are now made the subjects of prosecution than were even a very few years ago. Much of this increased activity of the law is owing merely to the natural progress of society. The more remote, and out-ofthe-way corners of the country, in which offences used frequently to be committed with impunity, are every day becoming more subjected to public observation; while the growing intelligence of the people also enables them to perceive more clearly the importance of not permitting violations of the law to go unpunished. But above all, it is well known, that an act passed a few years ago for regugreatly contributed to increase the number of offences number of committals for trial, without, of course, having brought under the cognizance of the courts, and even the who have had the best opportunities of investigating the at all affected the actual amount of crime. Many persons subject, are of opinion that these causes are quite sufficient to account for the increase in the number of offences, as exhibited by the public accounts, without supposing any real increase of crime at all. FOR Some years past very full and particular accounts have been annually laid before Parliament, of the number of persons committed, tried, convicted, and acquitted, on each of the different criminal charges known to the law, through-lating the allowance of their expenses to prosecutors, has out England, and also statements of the same nature, more or less complete, for the other parts of the United Kingdom. It is the principal object of the present paper to present an analysis of these returns for the year 1832, accompanied by a few observations illustrative of the general conclusions to which the facts seem to lead. There is no department of political science more important than that which relates to the statistics of crime. Without an accurate knowledge of the facts coming under this head, no sound opinion can be formed respecting almost any measure that goes to affect the social condition of the great body of the people; and the business of legislation, in its most vitally influential exercise, becomes merely an unprofitable and hazardous course of experimenting in the dark. Scarcely any new law or other measure of public policy can be adopted which has not a bearing in this direction—a tendency either to increase or to diminish some particular species of crime. The greater or less prevalence of any particular species of crime, on the other hand, is often a valuable diagnostic of improving health or growing disease in some region of the body politic. Looked to as a whole, again, the amount of crime existing in a country, is, perhaps, the best single index of its general prosperity and civilization. If we could obtain a perfectly accurate record of the progressive increase or diminution of crime throughout the community, that alone might almost serve as a measure of the public welfare. It is important, however, to observe that we are by no means as yet in a condition safely to compare in this manner our own country in its existing state, either with other countries, or with itself at a former period. Of the criminal statistics of other countries, we have, in general, no sufficiently detailed accounts; and even if our information were more minute and complete than it is, there are many, other circumstances besides the mere enumeration of offenders, which would have to be taken into consideration before a safe judgment could be come to. The peculiar form of the government, and the nature of the laws, in so far as they differed from our own, would in particular require to be examined and allowed for. Acts that were punishable in the one country, might not be reckoned offences at all in the other. A more rigorous and oppressive police in the one, without extirpating either the disposition to crime, or any of the other causes which usually lead to its prevalence, might yet prevent it from actually breaking out to the same extent as in the other, where more indidividual freedom was enjoyed. And various other differences might in a similar way affect the comparison. The same difficulties also, to a certain extent, interfere when we attempt to compare the present with the past state of our own country. Even if we confine ourselves to the short period during which the annual accounts of criminal offenders have been made up and published with the requisite fulness, we cannot safely place our dependence upon these documents alone. During this space of time, various changes may have taken place which, without the state of crime having been affected, nevertheless tend to give a new VOL. I. mentary Returns before us, any evidence with regard to We do not, therefore, propose to seek in the Parliathis latter point-holding it to be at least extremely doubtful how far we ought to trust their apparent testimony here. But they may still be taken as showing, in certain cases, the increase or diminution of particular offences. If, for instance, it shall appear that one class of offences has stationary, no alteration having taken place in the law with increased, while another has diminished or continued regard to either, it may be safely inferred that some circumstances in the situation of the country have occasioned the change. It is not to be supposed that the augmented vigigeneral, directed upon one description of offences more than lance of the law, and the zeal of prosecutors, have been, in upon another. But after all, our chief object is to exhibit a view of the existing state of crime, without much reference to its state at any past period. This is at least the first thing which it is necessary to know in directing our attention to the evil, with the view of applying the proper remedies. The condition of the community cannot be understood in the most interesting and important of its elements, until this knowledge has been acquired. The first return which we shall proceed to examine is the House of Commons' Paper, numbered 135, containing a the seven years, from 1826 to 1832, inclusive, in the different statement of the committals, convictions, and acquittals for counties of England and Wales. In the fifty-two counties of this part of the United Kingdom, and in the city and county of Bristol, it appears that the number of committals for each of the seven years was as follows: For 1826 The movement here exhibited, it will be observed, so far from having been steadily progressive, has occasionally even retrograded. In 1828, and again in 1830, the number of committals was less than in the preceding year. The increase, also, although considerable on a comparison of the two extreme years in the series, is very much diminished if the year 1827 be compared with 1831. On this interval of four years, it is only 1,723, or about 10 per cent.; the population, be it recollected, having probably increased about eight per cent. in the same time. There remains, therefore, only 2 per cent. of the increase of crime to be accounted for by the increased activity in the administration of the law. The following is the number of females committed | scoundrels than the thieves (most of them mere children) during each of the seven years: In 1826 7 2,692 In 1830. 2,770 2,732 1 2 8 9. 2,972 This makes the proportion of female commitments generally somewhat less than one-sixth of the whole number; excepting in 1829, when it was rather more than one-sixth; and in 1832, when it nearly amounted to one-fifth. It does not appear, however, to be regularly on the increase. On an average of the seven years, rather more than a tenth of the persons committed have not been prosecuted. Of the 127,910 persons committed, no prosecutions have taken place in the case of 13,300. Of the remainder, 24,370 have been tried and acquitted, being somewhat less than one-fifth of the whole number committed. The number convicted has been 90,240, being not quite 3 convictions for one acquittal on the whole number brought to trial. On the whole, the convictions have not amounted to two-thirds of the whole committals; and this proportion has been nearly uniform throughout the seven years. There can be no doubt that very many of the persons who have thus escaped punishment, have nevertheless been guilty of the offences for which they were sent to gaol; and it is also manifestly impossible, on the other hand, under the most perfect administration of the law, to prevent an innocent man from being sometimes apprehended on a criminal charge, and sent to take his trial. Yet, when for every 90 persons convicted, about 38 others, who had been in like manner charged as guilty, and subjected to the hardship and degradation of imprisonment, are after all dismissed without anything being proved against them, it is difficult not to feel that there is something faulty in the system of which such is the result. The evil may lie partly in the law, and partly in its administration; or it may arise, as it probably does in a great measure, from a defective police, which allows too many opportunities to the lawless portion of the community to commit offences in circumstances where their agency can be only matter of suspicion. But still it is, in any view of it, a serious consideration, that there should be nearly 6000 persons every year, in England alone, committed to jail as criminals, against whom no charge is ever substantiated. It is, of course, impossible to say what proportion of the number may be innocent; but let it be either considerable or insignificant, the fact is almost equally to be deplored. We have either many innocent persons treated, to a certain extent, as if they were criminals; or we have many criminals permitted to escape without their deserved punishment. In either case we have the guilty and the innocent confounded together, and the law made to seem contemptible for its weakness, where it is not hated for its injustice and oppression. The total number of convictions for 1832 was 14,947. Taking the population of England and Wales as amounting that year to somewhat above fourteen millions, this would make rather more than one criminal in every thousand of the inhabitants. But although the number quoted is stated to be that of the persons convicted in the year, we presume it is the number of convictions which is meant to be given; in which case the number of criminals must be taken at considerably less. The persons by whom larcenies, and larcenies from the person are mostly committed, are in a great many cases convicted several times in the course of the year; and probably it is not too much, to say that on an average each suffers two convictions during that time. If so, we may subtract between 5000 and 6000 from the total number of convictions; when the real number of the persons annually convicted will remain little more than 9000, or about one in every 1500 of the population. through whom they derive their infamous gains. The other most numerous classes of criminals are those convicted of breaking into a dwelling-house with larceny, (of whom, in 1832, there were 583,) of breaking into a shop, &c., not connected with a dwelling house (of whom there were that year 203), of burglary (of whom there were 118), of counterfeiting coin, uttering, &c., (of whom there were 349), of frauds (of whom there were 280), of offences against the game laws (of whom there were 163), of embezzlement by servants (of whom there were 154), of horsestealing (of whom there were 155), and of sheep-stealing (of whom there were 219). For robbery of the person there were 223 convictions, in none of the cases there being any attempt to kill or maim. For murder there were 20 convictions, for the attempt to commit murder 52, for rape 16, for assault with intent 80, and for arson 35. Of the 14,947 convictions, the 203 last enumerated are nearly all that can be described as of peculiar atrocity. If we add to these the 118 cases of burglary, and the 223 cases of robbery of the person, we shall include almost all that come under the head of violent and daring outrages against the law. In looking over this table of convictions with a view to discover which particular offences have most remarkably increased or diminished during the last seven years, we find that that of arson has increased from 3 cases in 1826, to 35 cases in 1832; that of breaking into a dwelling-house with larceny from 125 to 583; those of counterfeiting the coin, uttering, &c., from 210 to 349; that of embezzlement by servants from 91 to 154; that of forging instruments other than Bank of England notes from 8 to 50; that of frauds from 147 to 280; and that of receiving stolen goods from 157 to 347. On the other hand, cases of burglary have diminished from 311 to 118; forgery of Bank of England notes from 15 to 5; and larceny in dwelling-houses from 222 to 127. Some of these changes, however, have been occasioned by alterations in the law, according to which offences that were formerly comprehended under one head are now transferred to another, or are differently punished from what they were formerly. The number of persons sentenced to death, in 1832, was 1449, of whom 54 were executed, namely, 16 for arson, 15 for murder, 7 for rape, 4 for breaking into a dwelling-house with larceny, 4 for riot and felony, 4 for robbery of the person, 2 for attempts to murder, 1 for burglary, and 1 for secreting and stealing letters containing bank notes. The proportion of executions to condemnations, therefore, was that year not much more than 1 in 27. On the whole seven years, from 1826 to 1832, it has been nearly 1 in 23 ; 414 persons having been executed during that time from among 9729 sentenced to death. Of the other persons convicted in 1832, there were sentenced to transportation for life 546, for 14 years 764, and for 7 years 2603. Of the remainder, 7644 were sentenced only to imprisonment for six months and under, and to be severally whipped, fined, kept to hard labour, &c. The second part of this paper contains a statement of the number of persons committed, convicted, sentenced, and acquitted in London and Middlesex alone. The entire number of persons committed, in 1832, was 3739, of whom 866 were females, being nearly one-fourth of the whole, instead of only one-sixth, as throughout England generally. Of 2653 persons convicted, 120 were sentenced to death, and 6 were executed, being one-twentieth of the whole. In 1826, of 204 persons condemned to death, 20 were executed, being nearly one-tenth of the whole. The proportion of executions has been greatly reduced since 1829, in which year nearly 1 in 5 of all who were convicted were left to suffer. No person has since then been executed either for burglary, coining, forgery, horse-stealing, or the attempt to murder, for all of which offences there formerly used to be several executions every year. There have been no con Of the 14,947 crimes for which convictions were obtained in the course of the last year, considerably more than two-victions for arson, in London or Middlesex, since 1829. thirds were what in common parlance would be termed petty delinquencies-indicating the existence, indeed, of a large number of persons living by depredation, but not that of habits of violence and ferocity in any considerable fraction of the population. When this large number of convictions is mentioned, it ought not to be forgotton that 10,130 of them were for larceny simply, and 1151 for larceny from the person. Connected with these cases may be noticed 347 convictions for receiving stolen goods, a criminal trade in which the persons engaged are commonly much greater But besides those committed to gaol on criminal charges, a great many persons are every year taken into custody in London and its vicinity by the metropolitan police, and being brought before the magistrates, are either, when not immediately discharged, committed for trial, or summarily convicted. The House of Commons' Paper (No. 225) contains a statement of the number of persons thus taken into custody, with the charges on which they were taken, and the manner in which the several charges were dealt with by the magistrates, for the years 1831 and 1832. From |