The Sun.
London, England, 1818-04-14 00:00:00

OFFENDEit"' CONVICTION REWARD BILL.

On the motion for the second reading of this
13111,

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, he must give
his opposition to this Bill, because its principle
was the abolishing altogether the rewards given
for the apprehension of offenders'. These rewards
had been enacted in succession, at a great num-
ber of times; and with considerable distances be-
tween them, for the purpose of promoting the vi-
gorous apprehension of offenders. Jr was impos-
sible however to expect, but that offences would
be committed. It should be reflected on how
many persons had been
.brought to punishment
who never would have been apprehended but for
the encouragement offered by these Acts of Par-
liement. lie could not quarrel with the prin-
ciple of the Bill, on the notion that these rewards
bad induced persons to stimulate others to com-
mit offences. Ile did not mean to deny. that some
persons had been guilty of these crimes ;- but
there must, on all occasions, he a balance of
good. ,It was necessary there should be some sti-
mulus to make persons apprehend offenders, and
this was by giving them a reward for-so doing ;
for it was impossible men would make such meri-
torious exertions for the sinall pay they received
as Officers, and the inducements they would
have to put themselves in situations to detect cri-
minals would be done away with by this Act.—
The instigations had been supposed .to have hap-
pened much oftener than they bad. His own ob-
ject in altering the law would he, to reward for
the apprehension ; but that the giving of the re-
ward, or the refusing of it, should be left entire-
ly to the discretion of the Judge who tried the
criminal. 'fh.us the stimulus would not be taken
away, and the offence of inducing others to Com-
mit crimes would be diminished. It the Judges
thought they were not entitled to the 401. they
might remunerate them with a lesser sum ; and
where a man happened- to be killed in pm-suit of
an offender, the money Might he given to his ex-
ecutors. He was sorry, for the rea'sons etc had
stated, that he must oppose-Ihp um: -
Mr. W. SMITH thought the Bill had better be
read a second time, and the principles kid down
by the Learned and Hon. Gentleman he proposed
in the Committee. He agreed with him in most
of his conclusions, though not in his inferences
from the rewards having existed so long. lie
had no objection to leave the distribution of the
rewards-to-the discretion of the Judges, only that
he doubted whether it would not by degrees come
into the hands of subordinate persons, and the
duty be slurred over. He thonglft in the law,
as it now stood, the scale was precisely opposite
to what it ought to he ; for the greater reward
should be given for bringing the lesser criminal
to justice, and, vice versa., on the principle of pre-
vention being better than punishment. He could
not admit the propriety of the term meritorious,
as applied lxy the Hon. and Learned Gentleman,
to the conduct of those who sought money by
bringing offenders to justice. It was, on the con-
nary, a great mural demerit ; •for they were nine
times in ten guilty of a greater moral offence than
the culprit they apprehended.' lie trusted the
House would allow the Bill to be read a se-
cond time.—The ATTORNEY-GENERAL explained.
Mr: BENNET defended the principle of the
Bill. He felt be was placed heal' awkward situa-
tion by Leine; opposed to his Majesty's Attorney-
General ; but he could assure him that every Gen-.
tlentan and Magistrate who bad attended the Po-
lice ComMittee, had-concurred in the absolute
cessity of abolishing the system of- rewards ; and
all of whom gave a greater number of reasons'for
'the abolition than the Learned and Honourable
Gentleman had advanced against it. The odious
appellation was a stigma upon the officers, and if
there was no other reason, against the system,
this was enough. The Hon. Gentleman then
read a list of the number of prosecutions for bur-
glary at the Old Bailey, as svell as at all the late
Circuits, arguing from the ettomous number, that
the principle was the same all over the country,
which induced men to apprehend and even to en-
trap others, in order ((5 get a sum by their convic-
tion.
,At the Old Bailey there bad been no less
than 105 capital indictments, and 45 convictions.
If provision were made for the expellees and costs
of those who came forward for the prosecution,
he thought enough would be done. Fixed re•
wards he considered the greatest blot in the pre-
sent system. Such rewards bestowed for a vi-
gorous seeking out of offenders, proved but too
often rewards for a vigorous creation of .crime.
Those who received 401. 501. or in some cases
601. a year out of them, were obliged on princi-
ple to declare against fixed rewards. They served
but as a bounty to encourage wicked and design-
ing men to take offences to the rank of capital
crimes, which, but for these, would never have
been considered as .such. If a •child of nine or
ten years of age picked a pocket, instead of being
indicted for picking pockets he was brOoght
to trial for it robbery. Not many months bad
passed 'since two children, who, he believed,

were now in Newgate, one of whom was but
the other thirteen yeats of age, were convicted
a capital crime on the evidence of another
,e 1
who was but six years old. He had no norg'
doubt than he had of his 'standing there, that tbc:
offence they had committed wthild• never .101:64
been raised to the scale of a-capital crime,if t" -
present system had not offered the officers ti'r,e;-
ward of 40/. upon conviction. He hoped
Bill would be suffered to go to-a Committee,
he considered a change of system necessary:tOtm
honour and character of the country.
Mr. Alderman•WOOD considered the evil to be'
gin wi•li the reward of 71. given for the convieei(l,
of persons charged with passing bad money•
had found 13 persons in Newgate who were con °,
victed of this offence.- Among them there
Germans, Swedes, Frenchmen, and TrisTlienglis
who had been met lay.a• person on Tower-11"
inveigled to pass bad money. Froin, their ig"°‘•
ranee of the language, and other circomstancese;
they could baldly know what they were aboo (r-
-do, when they were taken by an officer wlto ci;
ways accompanied the person he had mentiooef
for that purphse, in order to gain the reward-n o'
71. paid on the conviction of each. These fse,si
he had stated to Lord Sidmouth, and he colue.
prove them by evidence. It was one of his :iv
officers-who had participated in this crime, an-
its coming to his knowledge, he (Mr. N17°0010%1
immediately caused hint to he discharged, o,
approved of the present Bill, and thought it P,;;.•
gable that the Right Hon. Gentleman 01)11°'1i
did not know of the struggles which freVell',tfi'
took place in .a Justice Rontll,- ftoin the anYkie
of the officers and witnesses- to get the oeeds;,,
committed by the Magistrates tor- a capital n't,
fence. If a Lady was rokbed•of her tidicole,'.l
having it snatched out of her howl, as
held it loosely, there eras probably no stroggl
and the offence was not capital. But if she 111,,4..
had the string of it twisted round her arm, it ")
'
then contended that violence must have been ase,ocl
and a struggle to get the prisoner committed. •
the capital crime took place. In some instances:::
Police Officers employed Cotinsel at their ("4.0
expense against prisoners.- While the office
were thus eager to procure a capital convicttnii
they little cared to take those for casting -of %r"
uiil
there was no reward.. He hoped the Bill vo
be allowed to go to a Committee. • tile
Colonel Wool) thought the House an Ai('
Country much indebted to those Gentlemen
had brought forward those enormities which '11,',-Lit
proved to lia‘T been committed under our pre,ed
Police system. He strongly disapproved of "old
rewards, and thought it desirable that they 5110 rt 4
be wholly done away. If this Were dote,
provision made for indemnifying prosecutors
their expen.6.es and loss of time, our Police ut'nu
be much better regulated. tip
Mr. HURST wished it to be remarked, t"-;ott
the course of the debate, not a single 011.jectztj;11,
had been urged against the principle of the re
The Attorney-General had only objected to b°le.
of its details. lie strongly defended the toen'nf
The SoLICITOR-GENERAL said, his Learned
Friend had not objected to the abortion of. fir
rd
rewards. There might, however, be.cases vt'11!.11
persons bad meritoriously come forward, io
tb
it would be very desirable that rewards sitonja
given. It might be desirable that Judges sh,
have the power of doing this, and of detertnin“?;;
where reward. Oa. Only
object ofj ItL
parttes who appeared against a prisoner, t
not be allowed.
Mr. BENNET stated this to be what be vrisj
es
to effect by-the present Bill, and read t"""zt $
clause containing a provision tO that effect.

The SoLICITOII -6HNERAL explained.
rt
Gcnerd THOSNTON wished the Court
the power of grantinmewards 011 convictions Jur
small crimes.
Sir T. BARING spoke in favour of the Bill, 'vhiciii;
was then read a. second lime, awl ordered i°

committed on
Privately Stealing Bill was re° •
third time and passed.

EMPLOYMENT OF THE POOR. dowse
Mr. Alderman Woon moved, that the
should go into a Cominittee on the Acts °I o-rA
26th and 27th of the King, for managing IF a 5
ships in Ireland. tree
Mr. GRED7FELL thought the Bill which lie
Honourable Gentleman wished to found. fitee
Acts whichithey were now to go int() a coinow
upon, was not merely a Bill for the emploYle.,o
of the poor, as the object of it was to leg a 'lO
Joint Stock Companies, leaving the parties •
them liable only to the amount of their resPc,etl:i.
shares. A measure, allowing any number al P-00
sons to unite to carry on any trade or business „,
such a principle, he was of opinion', struck (0/
reedy at the root of the trade and commerce
the country. - le•
Mr. Alderman Woon denied that his Bill
served the character which his Hon. Friena "if
given to it. lie hoped the Bill would be 811°",
to be brought in and printed. If it sboultibeir
jected to, he did not wish to press it brit c 'o-e
astsid
land, where the importance of snch "I,le-„ro.
could trot be denied ; but When the intendeu Crois••
visions. of it were known, he thought, At 8 "04
When millions wanted employment, there e°
be no hesitation in adopting it for this cooltil..
The !louse then went into the Committee.
Mr. Alderman Wool') moved, that a 13il1 511°"0,1
be brought in to repeal the Acts of the 26t5 t-
'27th of the• King, for the purpose of 'consoll'illie
ing their provisions in one Act, and extending
same', to. promote the employment-cf the poorr
manufactories, fisheries, and trade, byeneutirtiP'
ing and regulating partnerships.
Mr. GRENFELL said, the opinion he had Will.
66,
tl
of the Bill was founded on what had fallen 11..
the Hon. Member himself who wished to
it in. lie had no objection to the weasni-e, it,
Were to he confined in its operations to Irelaoa.
Mr. Woon thought •his Honourable Fri°'`‘
would see the measure unite in a different lig"
when the Bill was hiought in And printed,
,;rt
The lteolotion was agreed to, and the ter
of the Committee ordered to be received 0'
Thursday --Adjourned.

LONDON: Printed 1)373. B. CARSTAIRS, of No. 997 C,rr,v
Ormond-street, Queen-squnre; and published 1))"1`.,,Irl
SCRIPPS, of No. 7, South. Molton-street, at TUE
Office, No. 11.2, Stia ; where Advertisements, Order "
Letters,. &c, (post-yid) must be a4dressed.