The Sun.
London, England, 1828-07-31 00:00:00

MITMENTS ANI) CONVICTIONS IN LONDON AND MIDDLE

SEX, AND INTO THE STATE OF THE POLICE OF THE ME.
TROPOLIS, AND OF THE DISTRICTS ADJOINING THERETO

(cosimenD rfton OUR PAPER OE YESTERDAY.)

AGENCY OF POLICE OFFICERS.

With respect to the agency- of police officers in
these transactions, the evidence before your Com-
mittee is confined to those of the City and of Bows
street. No others have, it is believed, been engaged
in the negotiations about the property of bankers;
and though general imputations upon other offices
have been thrown out by some who acknowledged
their own delinquency, your Committee have no
proof of such transactions, and wish their remarks
to be understood as limited to the two sets of offi-
cers above mentioned. In Sir Richard Birnie's exa-
mination before the Police Committee of 1822, the
following statements occur :
" Are you aware at all of a practice which is supposed
to take place, of persons who are robbed coming to terms
with the robber through the medium of the officers ?—I
have heard of such a thing, but I never could bring it home."
" From the manner in which the offices are regulated,
and the means the Magistrates have of obtaining informa-
tion as to the conduct of their officers, that species of crime
to which the late question relates, could not be committed
to any great extent without your detecting it ?—I think it
impossible ; the Magistrates must have the means of de-
tecting it."
In his examination before this Committee, Sir R. Birnie
had again stated as follows—" Do you conceive that the
character of the police officers is much better now than it
used to be, prior to the year 1822 ; that they are of a
better description of men ?—I think they are.
" From that circumstance you consider that they
are not concerned now, as you have reason to believe
that they were in former years, in negotiating be-
tween thieves and persons who had been robbed of
their property ?—I do certainly say, that I never
knew an instance where I had any thing like posi-
tive reason to suspect they were concerned ix any
thing of the kind since the year 1821." [The year
in which Sir Richard began to take charge of the
office.] " Previous to the years 1821 or 1822," he
states, " I had been told that some of the old officers
had been concerned in it, some of the old stagers
that belonged to the office." During the latter
years, the attention of MagistrateS must have been
often called to it by general rumours and detailed
statements in the newspapers. Sir Richard admits
himself to have had suspicions formerly, and that
subsequent inquiries have been made, as, when
questioned, whether in the late cases of parcels
being stolen' from coaches being restored, he had
been able to trace any connection between the police
officers and the parties who had lost their property?
He replied--" Certainly not; and I will venture to
say that in one particular case, where it was roundly
asserted that it was done through the medium of a
Police Officer, I have reason to believe that it is un-
true.' " Mr. Halls also avers :—" I had .my suspi-
cions, but I had no knowledge of it ; and so far
from having any knowledge of it, I had given my
mind, if possible, to ascertain the means of acquiring
a knowledge of it." An inquiry also was instituted
by the Home Office, during the last year, into a
compromise, in which an officer was rumoured to
have been concerned, without any discovery being
made, though.every officer in the establishment was
sworn and examined. This ignorance could not
therefore arise from attention not having been called
to the subject. Your Committee having discovered,
that through those years compromises have repeatedly
taken place by the intervention of police officers,
and a regular system to facilitate thera has been
gradually maturing, conceive it is at least incumbent
upon Government to exact a more vigilant and in-
telligent superintendence generally, and more active
inquiries whenever suspicion shall arise.
Your Committee think it right to state, that;
however readily the officers of Bow-street and the
City Police have undertaken the negociatiori of
these compromises, they frequently seem to have
been. induced to it without a corrupt or dishonest
motive; and individuals of them have been satisfied
with a mirth less sum for effecting the compromise,
than the reward offered for the apprehension of the
' guilty parties. Suspicion had arisen in one case,that
8001. more was received by the officer who nego-
ciated than the thieves asked or received; and in
another, 501 was paid to procure restitution of 5001.
and neither the 5001. nor the 50/. were ever restored.
In no case, however, does it appear that any one of
them stipulated for a reward before hand; nor con-
nived at the escape of a thief; nor in fact ever nego-
ciated a compromise, when he possessed any likely
clue that might lead to the detection of the guilty.
Your Committee have before adverted to the igno-
rance in which the Magistrates appear to have been
kept as to these practices by their officers. It should
seem, from the evidence of Sir Richard Birnie, that
they only supposed a very small number of corn-
promises to have takers.place, arid those through the
medium of attorneys. Looking, however, to the
regular system and undisturbed security with which
the officers acted, it would not be strange if they
should have conceived that the Magistrates did not
disapprove; and entertaining the same opinion as
Sir Richard Birnie, " that the Magistrates must
have means of detecting them," should have thought
them disinclined to interfere, unless some unlucky
publicity forced these practices u'on their notice.
It has been distinctly asserted to your Committee
by officers, that they had the sanction of higher
persons of their establishment for engaging in such
negociations. This, however, has been as distinctly
contradicted; but that a belief in the connivance of
the Magistrates has existed, is corroborated by the
evidence cf an officer long retired from Bow-street,
and or. whom no such charge has been axed. He
hes said, " If the men who have been before this
Committee had been cautioned by the Magistrates
riot to interfere in any such thing, I am convinced
that part of these men would never have interfered
—they have thought they were doing a good thing
for the party losing the property, and that no no-
tice would be taken of it." Sir Robert Baker
also, when asked concerning such compromises,
" would you have considered, if it had come to your
knowledge, that it was a crime ?" answers, " not
merely the recovery of the goods; if they connived at
the escape of the parties, I should say it was a crime,
not otherwise." This, it should be remarked, refers
to a period. previous to 1821, from which year Sir
Richard Birnie more particularly dates his disbelief
of such transactions. Your Committee think the
abolition of the system for the future of much
greater importance than the punishment of former
offenders, who may, as often repeated in the evi-
dence, have considered themselves as undertaking
nothing criminal, arid many of whom may without
doubt be usefully retained in their situations. There-
fore, without intending to limit discretion with re-
spect to individual cases, your Committee do not
:onsider that the mere circumstance of a police offis I
cer having negociated a compromise necessarily dic-
tates his dismissal.

Your Committee deem it advisable that some
consideration and revision of the law relating to this
subject should be undertaken. They cannot state the
history of the statute 4 Geo. I. c. 11., better than in
the words of Mr. Justice Blackstone :—" An eighth
offence, is that of taking a reward under pretence of
helping the owner to his stolen goods. This was a
contrivance carried to a great length of villainy in
the beginning of the reign of Geo. I.: the confede-

rates of the felons thus disposing of stolen goods, at
a cheap rate, to the owners themselves, and thereby
stifling all farther inquiry. The famouS Jonathan
Wild had under him a well-disciplined corps of
thieves, who brought in all their spoils to him, and
he kept a sort of public-office for restoring them to
the owners at half-price : to prevent which audacious
practice, to the ruin and in defiance of public justice,
it was enacted by stat. 4 Geo. 1. c. 11, that who-
ever shall take a reward under the pretence of help-
ing any one to stolen goods, shall suffer as the felon
who stole them ; unless he causes such principal
felon to be apprehended and brought to trial, and
gives evidence against him.' Wild, still continuing
in his old practice, was upon this statute at last con-
victed and executed."
This statute was repealed, and its provisions re-
enacted last Session, by stat. 7 and 8 Geo. IV. c.
29. s. 58 ; but which makes the offence no longer
capital, and limits the highest punishment to trans-
portation for life. The statute 6 Geo. I. c. 23 s. 9.
(which is still unrepealed) enacts a reward of forty
pounds to the person prosecuting any such offenders
to conviction. It is to be observed, that while these
severe penalties against such compromises have been
provided, the offence of compromising felony or theft-
bote (as termed by older law writers), to perfect
which there must be an actual agreement not to
prosecute, and connivance at the impunity of the
felon, has continued, and still remains a misdemeanor
at common law, punishable only by fine and imprison.
ment. Lord Coke indeed lays down, that if the
owner of stolen goods, in addition to the offence of
theftbote, "receive the thief himself, and aid and
maintain him in his felony, then is he accessary to
the felony," viz. of robbing, himself. It seems that
for many years the statute 4 Geo. I. c. 11, has been
very ineffectual, perhaps arising merely from the diffi-
culty of detecting such offences, to which Sir R.
Birnie seems to impute it; as he says, " I believe
there is law enough against compounding a felony,
but the great thing is to get a discovery." The se-
verity of the punishment, under stat. 4 Geo. I. c.
11, may have discouraged prosecetions ; or the de-
cisions, that money or bank notes were not within
the meaning of such Acts, may have afforded the
officers a pretence for considering themselves as com-
mitting no crime in most of the late compromises.
This latter omission has been rectified by the Act of
last Session, the provisions of which have, it is
hoped, had a beneficial effect on various offenders.
One officer has stated, that his brethren lied agreed
"to give up all transactions of the sort ; as they
thought some mischief would come of it under Mr.
Peel's Act." But it does not appear that this agree-
ment took place till after the inquiry before alluded
to had been instituted by order of the House Office.
Another witness says, with respect to the " Fences,"
" I know that these persons, since the passing of
Mr. Peel's Bill, are more timid of receiving property
than they were before." It is extraordinary that the
police offisers, with the severe Act of Geo. I. in
existence, should, as it were, have considered them-
selves as committing no crime ; and your Committee
infers some deficiency in the law, which the statute
of last Session may not have completely remedied.
Your Committee, therefore, submit, as well worthy
of consideration, whether it would not be advisable
to make it at least a misdemeanour in the party
paying a reward for the restitution of stolen goods,
as well as punishing the party receiving it. This
has been recommended by an intelligent witness, well
acquainted with such parties and the nature of such
transactions. The advertising a reward for stolen
goods, "no questions asked," was by statute 25
Geo. 11. c. 36., subjected to a penalty of 501.;
which provision was re-enacted by Mr. Peel's Bill
of last Session, before cited. Your Committee,
therefore, see no injustice in making the payment of
that reward, a substantive offence, the published
offer of which has so long been subject to a penalty.
Your Committee, moreover, submit, that the due
gradation of crime would be better regarded, by
affixing to the offence of compounding felony a
higher punishment than that of merely paying or
taking a reward for the return of stolen goods.
Whether, in order to effect this, it may be advisable
to mitigate the punishment now enacted by 7 and 8
Geo. IV. c. 29. for the latter offence, or to make the
compounding a higher felony,• belongs to future de-
liberation on the details of the measure.
Your Committee are well aware that it may seem
severe to proceed with rigour against an act, which
at first sight contains nothing repugnant to honesty :
namely, helping an owner to regain, or he himself
regaining, the property of which he had been robbed.
But their inquiries have too satisfactorily convinced
them, that the frequency of these seemingly blame-
less transactions, have led to the organization of a
system which undermines the security of all valuable
property, which gives police officers a direct interest
that robberies to a large amount should not be pre-
vented ; and which has established a set of "putters
up," and " fences," with means of evading, if not
defying the arin of the law ; who are wealthy enough,
if large rewards are offered for their detection, to
double them for their impunity; and who would in
one case have given 1,0001. to get rid of a single
witness. Some of these persons ostensibly carry
on a trade; one, who had been tried formerly for
robbing a coach, afterwards carried on business as a
Smithfield drover, and died worth, it is believed,
15,000/. Your Committee could not ascertain how
many of these persons there are at present, but four
of the principal have been pointed out. One is the
farmer of one of the greatest turnpike trusts in the
metropolis. He was formerly tried for receiving the
contents of a stolen letter; and as a receiver of tolls
now employed by him, was also tried for stealing
that very letter, being then a postman, it is not too
much to infer, that the possession of these turnpikes
is not unserviceable for the purposes of depredation.
Another has, it is said, been a surgeon in the army.
The two others of the four have no trade, but live
like men of property; and one of these, who appears
to be the chief of the whole set, is well known on
the turf, and is stated, on good grounds, to be worth
30,000/. It is alarming to have observed how long
these persons have successfully carried on their plans
of plunder; themselves living in affluence and ap-
parent respectability, bribing confidential servants to
betray the transactions of their employers, possessing
accurate information as to the means and precautions
by which valuable parcels are transmitted; then
corrupting others to perpetrate the robberies planned
in consequence, and finally receiving, by means of
these compromises, a large emolument, with secure
impunity to themselves and their accomplices. It
is scarcely necessary to point cut the difficulties
which must obstruct these persons, even after. they
may have amassed a fortune, in betaking to any ho-
nest pursuit. This, your Committee have evidence,
is deeply felt by themselves; and the fear of being
them; andetriiityed of
b
b y theireeoming
confederates,
objects
for
should
sacrificethey desert
Police, to whom they at present consider themselves
theelves
of use, leaves little hope of any stop to their career
but by detection and justice, The owners of stolen
preperty have thus purchased indemnity
for psent
losses, by strengthening and continuing a system,
which re-acts upon themselves and the community,
re
by reiterated depredations, committed with almost
certain success and safety.
Your Committee believe they have not drawn
a stronger picture than the evidence before them
warrants; and whatever measures may be necessary
to abolish such a system, such measures, however
severe, should be provided.
DEFECT BY WHICH FORGERS ESCAPB.
In further improvement of the law, your Commit-

• t „
‘'sk . •..
• - . .
tee hi4.1,,e1k-ad brelipt-ikujie th6ileonsideration `ny
Mr. Gates (a ski or .1f extensive practice, aia
mach employed by baskets in the prosecution of for-
gery cases), the legal defect by which forgers Vel;
generally esteipe punishment ; and as the opinions of
this gentleman are given somewhat in detail they
cannot be submitted to the House in a clearer way
than in the following extract from his evidence :
Have the goodness to give the Committee any M-
-formation you can upon the subject of forgery ?—My
attention is more particularly called to the subject of
forgery ; and the difficulties that present themselves
with reference to that crime, arise more in respect of
the existing law on that subject than the police;
and, if it is not foreign to the object for which the
Committee are met, and they will permit me, I will
state what I consider to be a very great omission or
defect in the law upon that subject. Ido not know
that can illustrate it better than by stating a ver:e
recent case. A person had obtained the money for
three forged cheques upon the house of the
cheques are entirely in the hand-writing of —, but
he cannot be tried for the forgery of them for svant
of a venue ; for, as the law at present stand:, although
you can show the whole of the cheque or bill of sese
change to be in the hand-writing of a certain indivi-
dual, you cannot prosecute for the forgery unless you
can show where it was written, and in 19 cases out
Inch is very seldom
of 20 that is impossible ; thus the person committing
unless he were the
uthtete
the case, as the bill or cheque is generally giveu to
some porter or boy, of whom there are too many
frtelgefrytheesicnasptreusmpeunntisate,n:‘,-
loitering about the streets who, for a shilling or sir,
pence, would take the cheque to the banker's, where,
if it is discovered at the counter to be a forgery ; the
man is on the look out at the door or in the neigh-
bourhood to ascertain that fact, and immediately he
finds his messenger does not fetal] within the time:
by which he supposes he could get the money, he is
gone, and before you can get out of tile house he is
out of the way, by which means the greateet crimi-
nal escapes punishment.
Would not a Jury, from the presentation of the
cheque in Westminster, presume the writing of it
there ?-7-No, the rule is this : supposing you detect a
person who is the forger in the uttering, you can only
indict him successfully for the uttering ; and altheugh
we have counts in the indictment for the forgery, it
ie the invariable rule of the Judges in elle:ging the
Jury (except in cases where the party has been seen
writing the instrument, or there it other evideeee
tantamount to that fact) to tell them, as there is no
evidence where the forging took place, they cannot
find a verdict of guilty on the counts for forging, but
they may use the proof of hand-writing as bringing
home to the person a guilty knowledge of the utter-
ing knowing it to be forged, that ie in cases where
the forger himself is in custody, which was the ease
of —; but as we cannot prove where the writing
of the cheques took place, end the pereou who sits
tered them cermet be identified, it is impossible to
convict him in either of those cases.
Is there any other difficulty that presents itself in
prosecuting that crime ?--No; those who are in the
habit of committing forgeries confidently screen
themselves by this defect in the law ; and there is
not one case in a hundred where you can get a Con-
viction for the forgery. If an Act of Parliament ssae
to pass to remedy that defect, the crime of foigery
must, in my opinion, of necessity decrease,
FLASH HOUSES RESORTED TO BY THIEVE,
GAMBLERS, &c. •
Of the evils that prevail in counteraction of every
plan anti regulation that has for its object the im-
provement of the habits of the lower classes, none
works with more'dreadful certainty than the obscure
houses which are opened in every part of the town
under various designations, but better known under
the comprehensive tern' of " Flash Douses;" they
are the- resort of notorious thieVe,s,,.,of 'professed
gamblers, of idle and dissolute persons of both sexce ;
are frequently kept without license, and never in con-
formity to the provisions enacted by law; from the
penalties of which, it has been proved to your Com-
mittee that the keepers become secured by their
annual contributions to common informers, and by
the accustomed negligence or connivance of
public and parochial authorities.
To these sinks of profligacy and dissipation, your
Committee learnt with concern, that sundry Police
Officers are (as has been stated to have been the
case in former times) in the habit of resorting; tinder
the specious pretext that their object is to see, and
to become acquainted with the persons of notorious
characters, in order that they may the mote readily
counteract them when in the pursuit of plunder, aud
secure their persons when become amenable to law.,
But should such really be the genuine purpose under.
which they act, the objection would scarce be miti-
gated ; such however, is evidently net the motiese
Habits of intimacy arc formed with those that ought
to shun their presence ; in proof of which, sanctioned
by the imitation of the very keepers of these brothels,
officers participate in the annual feasts and entertain-
ments prepared to welcome and to gratify the
abandoned aHd accustomed frequenters of such places.
But none of the Justices, and scarce any of the
officers, have defended the practice on the score. of
necessity. Your Committee therefore trust that the
Magistrates will be required to take decisive and
effectual steps for the suppression of this long en-
dured nuisance, by the prosecution of every unlicensed
victualler, and by compelling those that are licensed
to observe such good rule and order as can alone
warrant the renewal of their license. Motives of
equity towards the licensed and orderly publican,
claim such an exercise of magisterial authority
motives of sound policy towards the community at
large prohibit any licence or act, be it of commission
or omission, that can serve as a cloak or a protection
to a disorderly publican.
MEASURES ADVISABLE FOR THE IMPROVE.