The Sun.
London, England, 1827-11-29 00:00:00

public concernment, and the determination on
the part of the one td waive his claim affects only
himself and his opponent. But in the Of
crimes it is very different. • The individual, whs.)
has been robbed or defrauded, figs i n interest in
the recovery of his property, but the public have
also an interest in the discovery and punishment
of the criminal. The spoil which the criminal
has obtained stimulates him to farther activity,•
supplies him with the means of continuing his
predatory operations; and of providing himself'
with the means for continuing them with -afore
mischievous effect. Now, the system of throw-
ing the reward of the officers on the sufferers,
must have the effect of throwing formidable ob-
stacles in the way of the discovery of ordinary
thefts and frauds. No prudent man v-culd think
of attempting the recovery of property at an ex-
pence which 'would exceed its value. We know
instances of persons who had recourse to officers
for the-recovery of stolen goods, and on obtain-
ing them, found themselves in debt to the offi-
cers for a sum far exceeding the value of the
property. As • a matter of business, therefore,
except the property be of considerable value, it
is absurd to attempt its recovery through the
medium of an officer. But this impunity adds
of course greatly to the fund for the support of
thieves, and, as Mr. 'Malthus would say, where
the means of subsistence for thieves exist, a cor-
responding population of thieves will be formed.
It is the interest of the officer that the thefts
should not only he abundant, but of magnitude,
because he will be frequently in demand, and the
larger the spoil the more can be afforded for his
services. Were he to volunteer his services, he
would not of course be employed, and it is there-
fore his interest to encourage rather than repress
crime—to see nothing which he is not paid to
see, that individuals may not hang back under
the idea that the zeal of the police may lead
them to exert themselves without being feed.
The old Jonathan Wilde system had some ad-
vantages over thepresent. The system fed only the
thieves and the receivers; the present system feeds
the thieves, receivers, and the Police. Jonathan
Wilde took care, as well as the Police, to pro-
portion the number of his thieves to the field
for their activity, by sacrificing a few of them
occasionally to justice. • The public had thin
benefit from it, that they never paid Jona-
than more for their goods than the worth of
them ; whereas the bill of the officer fre-
quently exceeds the value of the stolen property.
Jonathan, too, was paid only, for the_ goods he
restored ; the officer, on the contrary, makes his
charge whether he succeed or not. In short,
the modern English Police system seems an in-
genious device for doubling the spoil, by adding
the spoil of the Police to the spoil of the
thieves. In fact, the whole English System of
Police is so abominable, that individuals seem
more and more desirous of flying for refuge from
the Police to the thieves themselves. The sys-
tem of compromise is more and more resorted to,
as the least of two evils. In another part of our
Paper will be found an account of
.what may be
deemed all illustration of what we have been ad-
vancing. Notes to the value of 20,0001. having
been stolen from a Provincial Bank, it was
deemed expedient, under all circumstances, to
negociate for their recovery, and they have been,
it seems, recovered. We have heard that
Bankers complain bitterly of the expense of the
Police ; and, perhaps, even in matters of such
magnitude as losses of parcels of 20,0001, value,
it may he hardly less economical to pay tithe to
the thief] than to pay it to the thief-takers. But
in the case of Bankers there is another strong
ground for negociation. It is impossible for
the public to bear constantly in their memories'
a large list of notes of which the circulalionizas
been stopped ; and, in order to make sure of
escaping loss, and avoiding trouble and suspi-
cion, theyxet y. prudently refuse to take _any
notes of the Bank which --attempts to' dis-
cover the theft through such means. We know'
thatCountryßankers, who have forgeries on them,
' generally endeavour to conceal their misfortune
because the effect of publishing it would injure
the circulation of their notes ; prudent people,
in such cases, generally sparing themselves the
trouble of deciding between the good and the
forged, by cutting the Gordon knot as the Rev.
Mr. Brooksby, of Essex, phrases it, and taking
neither. This precaution is not confined to the
illiterate ; for we have known Country Bankers
themselves save themselves the trouble of discri-
mination, by consulting merely their list of
Banks with forgeries on them, and reject the
notes accordingly. Thus Bankers are, in a
great measure, completely at the mercy of the
thieves ; and if they wish to keep their shop
open, they have only the alternative of allowing
the stolen notes to circulate, which would be a
total loss, or compromising with the , thieves.
There is another particular in Sir Richard's
;statement deserving of remark, namely, the
power which individuals have of employing
officers, in the way the late Mr. Coutts did. It
is proper that- the King and Royal Family,.
Great Officers of State, &c:, should on public
occasions, have the civil and military protection
which may be requisite. But private individuals
have no right to servants of the public. The
officers are appointed to attend oit them are with-
drawn from the public. If a rich man wishes
to have more protection than others, when he
appears abroad on public occasions, he ought to
engage servants properly qualified for affording
him- that protection. But he has no right to
avail himself of the services of a man paid by the
public, and a public officer has no right to offer
him his services. In point of principle, it would
not be more absurd were the Lord Chief Jus-
tice of the King's Bench, instead of deciding
the causes in his Court, to himselflend
h
ttoei,
in-
dividuals in the character of 3:lr who
to
wanteofeprereev,entltian
is for Police-officers to allow themselves to be at
the t (If
oi sr p
theossl
discoveryo f rich i n
of crime,
d i vi d
0
me-
ditated crime, but as a peculiar protection. The
English are, in the conducting. their business, a
sensible reflecting people, and in the unprotected
state in which they are left, they feel that they
must extricate themselves from their difficulties
in the best way they can. In other countries,
individuals expect that they should be protected
by those who wield the resources of the public ;
but in England it is expected that the protection
of the public should devolve on individuals.
The man who has been stript of his property by
thieves, through the e ant of adequate protection,
is expected to incur another loss for the public
good. Thus, to recover his property he must
not compromise with the thieves ; but he mnst
i
be content to lose his property and pay police
officers into the bargain. Individuals in Eng-
land display good sense in the management of
their business? but how is it that there is so
little wisdom displayed in the management of
public
tbhe
e n ebfietn,
eafint d
ol )1 a
pb ic
be
--Little wisdom ? No such thing.
Pr
ateaffinatilrisviduals manage their own affairs for
their
emna.naghe
iis public
h e
same
affairs
principle--individuals taking care of them-