this occasion. It was desirable, indeed, that, under the present circumstances of the country, the attendance should be as full as possible, and therefore he moved, That the House be called over on Friday the 24th instant."

The motion was agreed to.

ORDNANCE ESTIMATES.] Mr. Brogden having brought up the Committee of Supply to which the Ordnance Estimates were referred,

Mr. Bennet resumed the subject of the hardship sustained by the reduced officers of the artillery drivers, and repeated the arguments he had advanced on a former evening. It had been stated, that eight out of twelve troops had been disbanded; but the fact was, there were twelve troops; six were disbanded in 1814, and six retained. The difference was, that the four troops that remained were composed out of the six that had been disbanded. They were all broke alike, and therefore were all entitled to some allowance. All he asked for was, that two more corps should be placed in the same situation as those that remained; and if this was not done, he should make a motion on the subject.

in with a postcript to the amount of 5,000l. for repairing damages done to the sea walls at Portsmouth and Haslar by the late violent storm; which, by the way, he did not think regular, as there had been no notice given on the subject. He thought that the ordnance department was one where great reductions ought to take place, but he was sorry to see that an increase of expenditure was advocated. The expense of this department had increased, was increasing, and ought to be diminished. He firmly believed, that in England, a reduction of one half might be effected, and in Ireland of two thirds. He had himself held the appointments of adjutant general, and of commander in chief in that country. At that time there were three engineers employed, and he then thought there was one too many; but Ireland had now no less than thirteen. He was anxious to point out to the public now and where a reduction should take place; but he would leave the subject for the present, however fully he was convinced of the necessity of speaking upon it.

Mr. Ward thought, that the time of the House was unnecessarily wasted upon the present discussion. There would another Lord Cochrane thought, the case of the and a more proper period come for the officers alluded to was one of great hard-examination of the subject alluded to. ship. It was understood at the time, that their reduction was only a temporary measure, and that an early opportunity would be taken to employ them; but now they were told that they would not again be wanted. Those officers were also obliged, before they could receive their half-pay, to swear that they held no civil or military appointment, thus obliging them to live on a scanty pittance, or else to give up their half-pay altogether. He held in his hand papers which stated that many of those officers had served for a great length of time, and that one of them had been instrumental in saving an entire brigade of sir John Moore's army. This and many other acts of similar service called for the consideration of government, and he hoped they would not be overlooked.

The Earl of Carhampton said, he felt himself in a strange place, and heard strange things. He recollected, a few nights past, that the hon. member who moved the resolutions in the committee on the ordnance estimates appeared to him to drag the papers from his pocket or his sleeve, like a conjuror, and when the different items were agreed to, he came

When that time should arrive, he would be prepared to enter into a defence of every item which had been brought forward. The noble lord who spoke last had certainly availed himself of a fair opportunity for making his observations; but he must say, in return, that the subject had been so amply discussed, not only in that House, but by committees above stairs, that he felt it unnecessary to offer any reply. If the noble lord would suggest to him any practicable retrenchment, he should most willingly accept the suggestion. With regard to the vote of 5,000l. for the repair of the damage done by the late storms to Portsmouth, he admitted, that, in point of regularity, notice ought to have been given of this additional item in the estimates. The report, however, on which the application to parlia ment was founded, represented the immediate necessity of the repairs, and it was upon this consideration that the notice had been dispensed with. If the House should be of opinion, that this form of proceeding was necessary, he was willing to withdraw the resolution for the present.

The Resolutions were then agreed to.

BILL. On the order of the day for the second reading of this bill,

OFFENDERS CONVICTION REWARDS | nesses, or the officers, appeared to be acting from motives of interest, and not from a regard to public justice; when they appeared not meritoriously zealous for the punishment of crime, but disposed to make a trade of their services for personal benefit; then the judges should refuse the reward altogether. If the contrary was the case, they might award the whole 40l., or give any part, or distribute it among those who had exerted themselves for the apprehension of the criminal, according to their merits. He opposed the second reading of the bill, therefore, not because it abolished fixed rewards, but because it allowed no rewards at all, and thus took away all inducements to exertion in the apprehension of criminals. By the bill no reward was allowed except to the family or executors of an officer who was killed in the execution of his duty. This provision of the bill he would adopt, and in another part of it too, that referred to the prohibition of transferring Tyburntickets, he entirely concurred. He would agree, generally, with the honourable author of the bill, to abolish all certainty of reward, either as to amount, the terms on which it might be claimed, or the distribution of it among the different parties who lent their exertions to apprehend criminals; but he could not concur with him in abolishing rewards altogether. He thought the evils at present complained of might be removed, conspiracy prevented, and all the salutary objects in view attained, by still continuing to hold out rewards for apprehension; but referring the amount, and the question whether any thing at all should be granted, to the judges. In their discretion it might be safely rested: with them the power would not be abused, while the public would have all the benefits that might arise from stimulating the activity of officers and prosecutors in the performance of their duty. It was because the bill, as it at present stood, could not accomplish the latter object, that he opposed the second reading.

The Attorney General said, that he had no difficulty in admitting the propriety of some alteration in the law as it now stood; but the present measure went to the total abolition of all rewards for the apprehension and conviction of offenders. These rewards had been enacted by a great variety of statutes, passed at very different periods; and the inference was, that the legislature had, at each of those periods, been impressed with the necessity of stimulating the assiduity and exertions of the persons employed in performing this necessary service. Now, a law passed for the more effectual punishment of offenders, must not be supposed to have been inefficacious, merely because offenders were still found to exist. It was not possible for any man to say how many had been deterred from crime by such regulations, nor indeed how many had been brought to justice by their means, who would otherwise have escaped. He certainly could not deny the position, that rewards might in some cases operate, for that they had so operated had been lately proved in courts of justice, to induce men to tempt others into offences for the purpose of obtaining them. Of so serious an evil the instances, he must hope, were but few, and no general law, it was well known, could ever arrive at perfection, or be at all times guarded against abuse. The question was, whether these were not cases of a peculiar nature, in which it was necessary to the interests of society, that the zeal and activity of individuals should be stimulated-cases in which it was ne cessary for them to leave their homes, and expose themselves to situations perhaps of considerable peril. His notion was, that it would be injurious to the interests of justice, in the apprehension of criminals, to take away the rewards for conviction in all cases; but he thought that for no apprehension ought there to be a fixed reward. His opinion Mr. W. Smith said, he could not agree was, that both the extent of the reward, with the hon. and learned gentleman in the distribution of it, and whether there opposing the second reading of the bill, ought to be any reward at all, ought to while he concurred with him in several of be referred to the judges before whom the his positions. It might go into the comcharge was made, and the indictment mittee, and be there amended, so as to tried. The stimulus for the apprehension meet the views of the hon. and learned of criminals would thus be left, while the gentleman, and those who concurred geinducements to conspiracy would be re-nerally in its principle, but differed about moved. When cases came before the its detail. In much of what the hon. and court, in which the prosecutor, the wit- learned gentleman had said towards the

and exertions of his hon. friend, the former of which all were as ready to acknowledge to be laudable as the latter. were great, and because he thought that what was objectionable in it might be amended in the committee.

The Attorney General said, he had no wish to press the opposition to the second reading, with the understanding, that his object could be obtained in the committee by amendment.

Mr. Bennet confessed he felt himself rather in an awkward situation, in having to oppose himself on a question so connected with the jurisprudence of the country, with a gentleman of the acknowledged professional character of the learned attorney-general. But he still could not admit that his views on the continuance of those rewards upon the conviction of offenders, were at all weakened by what had been advanced that night. It could not be said that he had adopted them on slight grounds. Every gentleman of a very numerous committee had concurred in the conviction of the necessity of abo

conclusion of his observations he cordially agreed, but he could not allow the strength of his arguments against a change, drawn from the history of the statutes connected with the present subject. The rewards, he thought, were very improperly proportioned, as they regarded the different kinds of crimes. The greatest reward was given for the apprehension of the greatest criminal, and the less reward for the conviction of the least offence. The scale appeared to him to be thus improperly graduated, both because less pecuniary inducement was required for exertion to apprehend a person charged with a great crime, from the natural sentiments of mankind being more strongly excited against the criminal, and because, by holding out an increase of reward in proportion to the atrocity of crime, a motive was given for allowing offenders to proceed in their guilty course till their apprehension should become of value. The hon. and learned gentleman had spoken of the merits of persons who exerted themselves to apprehend criminals. In the sentiments he had expressed on this sub-lishing them. Such was also the opinion ject, he could not concur. Where was the merit of apprehending or prosecuting, if it was done for the purpose of obtaining 40., and not from a regard to the interests of justice? In his opinion, there was not only the want of merit, but a great demerit. If you took away the hope of reward, you confessedly took away the motive to exertion, and the merit of the prosecutor was thus to be measured by his love of gain. If the case were otherwise-if the prosecutor were sincerely actuated by motives of duty and a regard to public order or justice-the stimulus would remain the same, though the rewards on conviction were abolished. But though he could not allow merit to prosecutors who acted from a regard to personal interest, he could not agree with his hon. friend (Mr. Bennet) in abolishing all motives to exertion arising from such a cause The reward should be proportioned to the exertion, and the trouble made or incurred, and not according to the magnitude of the offence for which a conviction might be obtained; but still there ought, in his opinion, to be some kind of reward. He objected to the bill in some particulars; but he could not concur with the attorney general in opposing its second reading, because he thought that such a decision against it would appear to cast a slur on the motives (VOL. XXXVIII.)

i

of the police magistrates, end even of the police officers who had been examined before them. And what reason did the latter give for that conviction? They said that they felt the necessity from the manner in which officers where treated by juries in consequence of these rewards, that they came into court with mill-stones round their necks, and that while these rewards were continued, they were exposed to the odious appellation of Blood Money-an appellation, he must say, so odious, and at the same time so inveterately fixed in the honest and unadulterated feelings of the people in every part of the country, that of itself it constituted a reason to get rid of a system so abhorred. But there was also this more material proof, that the ends of public justice were defeated by their continuance. It was on evidence in the reports of that committee, that in many cases false evidence was given by police officers, in order to bring the offence within the reach of the remuneration. Such was the opinion of Mr. Townshend and of Mr. Holdsworth. What had that excellent man Mr. Shelton, the clerk of the arraigns at the Old Bailey, stated? Did he not declare, that too frequently these officers endeavoured to stretch the point with the view of sharing in the price of blood. The calenders of the criminal courts established the same

(C)