presented the following Message from the Prince Regent:

"GEORGE, P. R.

"The Prince Regent, acting in the name and on the behalf of his Majesty, thinks it right to inform the House of Commons, that Treaties of Marriage are in negotiation between his royal highness the duke of Clarence and the princess of Saxe Meiningen; eldest daughter of the late reigning duke of Saxe Meiningen; and also between his royal highness the duke of Cambridge and the princess of Hesse, youngest daughter of the landgrave Frederick, and niece of the elector of Hesse.

"After the afflicting calamity which the Prince Regent and the nation have sustained in the loss of his Royal Highness's beloved and only child, the princess Charlotte, his Royal Highness is fully persuaded that the House of Commons will feel how essential it is to the best interests of the country that his Royal Highness should be enabled to make a suitable provision for such of his royal brothers as shall have contracted marriage with the consent of the Crown: and his Royal Highness has received so many proofs of the affectionate attachment of this House to his majesty's person and family, as leave him no room to doubt of the concurrence and assistance of this House in enabling him to make the necessary arrangements for this important purpose.

G. P. R."

The Message having been brought up and read from the Chair,

said, that conformably to precedent in former cases, he should move that the Message be referred for consideration to a committee of the House to-morrow. He should refrain this evening from entering into any explanation of the message, which, as matters now stood, it would be not only advisable, but more consonant with the practice of the House to enter upon to-morrow. For the present, he should abstain from taking any proceeding upon the message, which might have the appearance of pledging the House to an express line of conduct ultimately, and would merely move, "That an humble Address be presented to his royal highness the Prince Regent, to return his Royal Highness the thanks of this House, for his most gracious communication of the intended marriages between his royal highness the duke of Clarence and the princess of Saxe Meiningen, eldest daughter of the late reigning duke of Saxe Meiningen, and also between his royal highness the duke of Cambridge and the princess of Hesse, youngest daughter of the landgrave Frederick, and niece of the elector of Hesse: to express our entire satisfaction at the prospect of these alliances with protestant princesses of illustrious families; and to assure his Royal Highness, that this House will immediately proceed to the consideration of his Royal Highness's graeious message, in such a manner as shall demonstrate the zeal, duty, and affectionate attachment of this House to his majesty's person and family, and a due regard to the importance of any measure which may tend to secure the succession of the Crown in his majesty's illustrious house."

said, he could have no objection to agree to the proposition of the noble lord. Not having been one of those favoured members, who had had the advantage of hearing the noble lord's views with respect to the sums which ought to be asked from the House, of course he could at present form no opinion on the subject. He could not help thinking it was not very respectful to the House to summon certain members out of the ministerial side of the House, who had in confidence communicated to them what it was not fitting should be made known to the House till to-morrow [Hear, hear!]. These meetings, it would seem, were always called when any new measure was to be submitted to the House; for ministers were convinced, that unless their measures had such a previous rehearsal, they could not carry them. Nothing could be done without a previous discussion in a meeting of fifty or sixty ministerial gentlemen. Such had been the nature of the meeting at lord Liverpool's that morning.

said, he was not aware of any thing unconstitutional or unusual in occasional meetings of this nature, nor could he see any parliamentary usage to preclude them.

said, if the reports which were in circulation were true, he thought an opportunity ought to be given to the people of England to see how every individual representative acted on such anoccasion as the present; and he should therefore probably feel it his duty to move call of the House. If sufficient time was afforded before the discussion came on, he should have no such duty to perform; but if it was not afforded, he should move the postponement of the discussion.

said, that in the course he proposed to adopt, he was only following the invariable practice of parliament, which was to name a day for taking into consideration the royal message. If a call of the House should be moved for, he should not give it any opposition.

contended, that under the present circumstances of the country, it was necessary for the House, if it valued its own character, the peace of the nation, and the security of the throne, to take every step in all it did, to carry the voice of the country along with them. He should be disposed to support the motion of any honourable member who should propose that before proceeding any further on the subject, the usual caution should be taken to secure a full attendance, and that there be laid before the House a correct statement of facts, containing the sums already granted to, and annually in possession of, some of the members of the royal family.

had been anticipated in what he meant to say by his hon. and learned friend. He was decidedly of opinion that an account should be laid before the House of the income of theroyal dukes, from naval and military appointments, from the civil list, and from the droits of the Admiralty, and should make a motion to that effect.

did not intend to oppose the motion, but it must be postponed till the present question was disposed of.

said, he was surprised after all they had heard and seen of the distresses of the country, that any message should be brought down to the House, sanctioned by the confidential servants of the Crown, calling on parliament to give away large sums, without laying before them information to show the necessity of the measure. He was one of those who were desirous that the House should withhold every allowance till the necessity of it was clearly proved. He considered the practice of calling together a certain number of members, for the purpose of taking their opinion whether such an application ought to be made, a practice highly objectionable. No man was more attached than himself to the house of Brunswick. He believed the support of the throne to be essential to the happiness and security of the people at large. But, in giving the royal family every proper support, it was necessary for him to look also at the interests and feelings of the people, and to examine what the finances of the country enabled it to pay. Now, he would appeal to any gentleman who had heard the discussions on the leather tax, whether this was a time to make any grant of the public money that was not justly called for. They ought to see what burthens the people could bear, before they voted a single shilling for such a purpose as the present.

trusted that the House would not be called upon to vote one single shilling, till after the chancellor of the exchequer had laid before it a detailed statement of the supplies, and ways and means of the year.

could not see any fair reason why the noble lord should refuse to mention the amount of the grants he intended to propose. Information was due to the public, when a grant, reported to be so large, was intended, in the present circumstances of the country.

thought it would be unfair, as well as unsatisfactory to the House, to state the sums proposed, without being able to enter into all the requisite details and explanations.

said, that he was one of those who had attended the meeting alluded to during the early part of the discussion. He thought he should not take too much upon himself if he stated that what had transpired there had not met with the satisfaction of several others besides himself. He would not say more at present, but he would repeat, that in what he had mentioned, he had not stated his own feelings alone.

wished to know, whether the proposition to be submitted to-morrow would include any other individuals than the illustrious persons mentioned in the message?

declined giving any answer.

asked, whether ministers had not communicated to their select committee, that they intended to propose 19,000l. in addition a year to one of the royal dukes, besides 19,000l. outfit, and 12,000l. a year to each of the others?

said, it was a very singular proceeding for his majesty's ministers to declare to a private meeting of their own friends, what they refused to communicate to the House.

said, he should be glad if any of the gentlemen who were present at the meeting alluded to, if they were not bound to keep silence on the subject, would be so kind as to state, for the information of the House, what was the amount of the sums proposed to the royal persons to whom they were to be granted. If any gentleman would have the kindness to furnish that information, the House would be much better prepared for the discussion tomorrow.

said, he wished to be informed either by the noble lord or by the Speaker, whether it was consistent with the usages of the House, or whether, in fact, there was any precedent in which the House, in their vote of thanks to the throne for such a communication, went further than the message itself?

said, it was not meant by the proposed Address to commit the House upon any of the points mentioned in the communication from the throne. It gave no countenance to any particular amount of grant, or in fact to any grant at all. The Address left the House perfectly open. It did not pledge the House to any thing; it contained a mere expression of thanks, as usual, for the communication, and a promise to take it into consideration.

said, he had not less regard to the security of the succession to the Crown, than the noble lord, but he thought that some regard should be paid to the interests of the people, which were not at variance with the interest of the Crown, but closely connected with it. There was an omission in the Address, which, if it was not supplied, would prevent him from concurring in it. The House pledged itself to take such measures as a regard to the succession to the throne required. To this he had not the least objection; but he thought it fit the House should declare its regard also to the state of the people, and its sense of the burthens under which they labour, and the privations they undergo. He should, therefore, move to add after the word "House," these words, "and to the burthened state of the people of this country."

said, the amendment appeared to him quite unnecessary, and would seem to imply, before any specific grant was proposed, that there was, in some quarter, not a due regard to the burthens of the people. There was nothing in the Address which called in question the principle, that the interests of the people should be attended to. Such amendments were not, he believed, upon such occasions, recognized by the usage of parliament. For these reasons, he should oppose the one now proposed.

thought that nothing could be more moderate than the amendment of his hon. and learned friend. When the House was called upon to make large provisions, there was nothing more natural than to take into consideration the situation of the country. He did not feel all that joy that the noble lord perhaps might feel on occasion of these marriages. They were unlike marriages in private life. No one of them ever occurred without the country being burthened. They were always accompanied with a considerable addition to the revenue of the personages who were the parties. At present a man had only to walk about with his eyes open, to see that the country was in a most distressed condition. They ought to consider before they added even a single sixpence to the public burthens.

said, that the proposed amendment did not pledge the House to any particular line of conduct, any more than the other parts of the Address. The amendment was particularly necessary at present, because they were going to do more than they had ever been called upon to do in one day before. They knew that a meeting had been held, at which the subject was discussed. They were not put in possession of what had transpired there, but they were informed, though not from the highest authority, at least from one of the most respectable members of the House, that what was proposed was such as ought not to be entertained. They should take care then, not to commit themselves. They were ready to discharge their duty to the Crown; but when called upon to do it under such suspicious circumstances, was it too much to pledge themselves in the Address, that in attending to the interests of the Crown, they would not disregard those of the people?

The gallery was then cleared for a division, and strangers remained excluded for nearly three quarters of an hour, during which time an interesting discussion took place, of which the following is the substance:

expressed his anxiety to explain the reason why he could not vote for the amendment. Viewing it as pledging the House to the principle of economy, he did not object to it on that ground. On the contrary, when the proposed allowance came to be discussed, he should show by his vote that he was as warm a friend to the principle as any man; but he was averse to departing from the usual mode of proceeding in such addresses, which might be liable to misconstruction.

said, he was desirous of removing the false impression under which the hon. gentleman appeared to labour, when he thought that it signified nothing to the successful opposition of the proposed measure, whether the vote was given in this or in a future stage. He pressed his amendment for the very purpose of deterring ministers, in the earliest possible stage, from going on with such a measure; and he was confident that the amendment, if carried, would have the most salutary consequences, as well to the interests of the country, as to the stability of the government, by putting an end at once to a proposition fraught with the very worst consequences to both.

could not avoid declaring the course which he felt himself bound to adopt. Disapproving highly of the proposition made at the meeting at lord Liverpool's, he should decidedly oppose it; and, though he wished the amendment had not been moved, still he felt he had no choice, but must give it his support.

wished his hon. and learned friend would consent to withdraw the amendment. He entirely concurred in opinion with him, and when the question was brought forward, he should strenuously support him to the utmost of his power. But he was apprehensive that it might wear an appearance very foreign to his hon. and learned friend's intentions, if the House departed from the precedents of former addresses, by referring to the topic of economy, not to be found in the message, and thereby seeming to insinuate that the Crown had improperly omitted that important consideration. On the merits of the question he heartily agreed with his hon. and learned friend.

expressed his regret at being obliged to differ so widely from his right hon. friend in his view of the amendment, which he regarded as absolutely necessary, after what had passed on both sides. It was a great mistake in his right hon. friend to suppose that the amendment could refer to any thing but the conduct of ministers. The message was their act, and if the omission was censured by the amendment, the censure fell upon the constitutional advisers of the Crown alone.

said, he was one of those who were present at the meeting at lord Liverpool's, and he there felt that he could not agree to the proposition of ministers. He was prepared to oppose it by his vote when it should come forward; but he declined supporting the amendment, or voting in the present stage.

strongly supported the amendment, as did Mr. Calcraft and Mr. Tierney, upon the ground of lord Castlereagh's refusal to inform the House what was intended, and the fact which had come out of so many members that morning having learnt what the measure was, and immediately declared that they could not agree to it.

said, he should not easily be suspected of opposing government, with whom he so generally acted. But he had been one of the meeting at lord Liverpool's, and had found a great many others, like himself, friends to the measures of administration, but who could not agree to the proposition made by lord Liverpool. However, he should reserve himself for the after stage of the question.

considered that those who opposed the amendment quite mistook the question. The duty of the House was to act as an intermediate body between the people and the Crown, attending to the interests of both. His right hon. friend (Mr. Plunkett) could not surely so far forget its functions, and indeed its whole forms of proceeding, as to regard any thing which it did relative to a message or address, as applicable to the executive branch of the government, or to any persons other than the ministers of the Crown. After the avowals of opinion on all sides respecting the expected proposition, it would be a deception not to add the declaration contained in the amendment.

wished the amendment to be withdrawn, for fear of impeding the future opposition to the proposed vote, in which opposition he should certainly concur; but the amendment he thought contrary to the usual forms of their proceedings.

deemed it necessary to declare at once, in the earliest stage, his opposition to the measure. He approved of the amendment, because it went to declare the opinion of the House, and to prevent the measure, deprecated on almost all hands, from being proposed. It had his unqualified assent.

was against the amendment, though he strongly supported the principle of it, and should show this by his vote when the measure was proposed.

said, he had been at the meeting at lord Liverpool's, and disapproved of the proposition.

warmly supported the amendment.

asked, whether if such an expression of regard to the burthens of the country had been in the original address, gentlemen would have voted for leaving them out?

said, he had not been at lord Liverpool's, though he had on former occasions of a similar kind, and had expressed his mind freely. If he had been there, he should to-day have opposed the proposition decidedly, and so he should when it came on; but he would not vote now for the amendment.

begged the House, before it came to a vote, to recollect that the whole of the members to whom the private and unconstitutional disclosure had been made in the morning, and who alone knew its nature, had, from all that now-appeared, disapproved of it, and had, one after another, informed the House of its being of a kind impossible to be supported by those who usually voted with ministers. Was it too much in these circumstances to record the warning of the House to ministers in the address, and to let it be known that there existed such an opinion? The original address would only tend to mislead any one who read it as to the sentiments of the House, and the reception which the proposition was likely to meet with.

The question being put, That the words "and to the present burthened state of the people of this country," be added, the House divided: Ayes, 93; Noes, 144. The Address was then agreed to in its original shape.

then moved, "That there be laid before this House, a Return of all Incomes received by their Royal Highnesses the Dukes of Clarence, Kent, Cumberland, Sussex, and Cambridge, arising from Military, Naval, or Civil Appointments, Pensions, or other emoluments, as well as all Grants out of the Admiralty Droits, made to them since the year 1800." It would also be desirable to ascertain the income received by the duke of Cambridge from Hanover.

concurred in the necessity of obtaining this information.

did not see how this information could be had through the usual official mode of applying for accounts. It certainly could not be had as the motion was wotded.

asked, what use there would be in altering the words of the motion, if what the right hon. gentleman said was correct—that he knew no way of getting at these accounts If government had not the power of getting at these accounts he knew not who could. He hoped, however, that some pains would be taken to procure the necessary information.

remarked, that although there was no office in the kingdom from which the return alluded to could be obtained, there was one person who could readily make that return, and that person was the duke of Cambridge himself. Such a return was obviously necessary to guide the judgment and decide the ultimate vote of the House upon the question just submitted to its consideration. It was no doubt fit and becoming that the several members of the royal family should he enabled to maintain a degree of splendour suitable to their high station, but then the House was bound to consider the means which each possessed to answer that purpose, before any additional grant was acceded to. With this view the House should be apprized of the revenue derived from Hanover by the duke of Cambridge; and if a country, which had so often been the cause of augmenting the expense of Great Britain, should at length contribute something towards an alleviation of our burthens, we might hail the extraordinary change.

observed, that it was quite unusual on the part of that House to inquire into the receipts or revenues of the royal family from foreign countries. It was known, indeed, that upon a former occasion, Mr. Fox concurred with Mr. Pitt in resisting a proposition of this nature, and that the former was more decisive than the latter in deprecating the inquiry.

expressed his conviction, that if Mr. Fox had lived to witness such a motion as the discussion of that evening referred to, with the present burthens and distresses of the country, his conduct would have been decidedly different.

The motion was agreed to.

said that it was his original intention to have given some previous notice of the motion which he thought it necessary to submit, for a Call of the House at the present crisis But from what had been said by the noble secretary for foreign affairs, he felt it proper to bring forward this motion at once, and without notice. This course, he was indeed, urged to adopt, by considerations wholly independent of the tone and temper which appeared in this evening's discussion. For upon such a question as that to which the message referred, the opinion of every member ought to be known. There were some members whose attendance ministers themselves might be willing to dispense with from motives of personal or political accommodation, while others might decline to attend for their own accommodation. But no such considerations should be regarded upon 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.

having brought up the Committee of Supply to which the Ordnance Estimates were referred,

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.

thought, the case of the officers alluded to was one of great hardship. 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 array. This and many other acts of similar service called for the consideration of government, and he hoped they would not be overlooked.

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 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.

thought, that the time of the House was unnecessarily wasted upon the present discussion. There would another and a more proper period come for the examination of the subject alluded to. When that time should arrive, he would be prepared to enter into a defence of every item which had been brought for ward. 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 parliament 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 wilting to withdraw the resolution for the present.

The Resolutions were then agreed to.

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 necessary 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 was, that both the extent of the reward, the distribution of it, and whether there ought to be any reward at all, ought to be referred to the judges before whom the charge was made, and the indictment tried. The stimulus for the apprehension of criminals would thus be left, while the inducements to conspiracy would be removed. When cases came before the court, in which the prosecutor, the wit- 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.

said, he could not agree with the hon. and learned gentleman in opposing the second reading of the bill, while he concurred with him in several of his positions. It might go into the committee, and be there amended, so as to meet the views of the hon. and learned gentleman, and those who concurred generally in its principle, but differed about its detail. In much of what the hon. and learned gentleman had said towards the 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 subject, he could not concur. Where was the merit of apprehending or prosecuting, if it was done for the purpose of obtaining 40l., 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 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 be thought that what was objectionable in it might be amended in the committee.

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.

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 ort slight grounds. Every gentleman of a very numerous committee had concurred in the conviction of the necessity of abolishing them Such was also the opinion of the police magistrates, end even of the police officers who had been examined he-fore 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 conclusion. In London, indictments in one year were laid for 105 offences, all carrying rewards, and there were only 40 convictions. Thus, as Mr. Shelton stated, public justice suffered, by this endeavour to regulate the indictment, not by the crime of the offender, but by the hope of profit in the police officer. Let the House go through the criminal proceedings of all the counties, and they would see nearly the same proportion between the indictments and the convictions, as he had before stated took place in London. As these rewards had, therefore, so pernicious an effect, they ought to be abolished. Nor did he see any necessity to provide farther than the bill did for the apprehension of criminals. It proposed to indemnify prosecutors and witnesses for their expenses, and to remunerate them for the trouble they incurred. He did not think that the ends of justice required more, or that the interest of the prosecutor should be made to lie in procuring the conviction of an offender by any testimony to which he was not prompted by a sense of truth and the common feelings of our nature against crime. The inducement which was thus held out to prosecution, was as great as ought to be given. Fixed rewards had been long the great blot in our system of criminal procedure. As long as any thing more is offered for procuring convictions than a mere indemnity for expense, and a remuneration for time and trouble, the interest of the prosecutor will be made to consist in prosecuting falsely, and an inducement will beheld out, not to detect, but to make crime. All the persons who were connected with the police acknowledged that the principle of the present system was bad, and that from the beginning of it to the end, instead of checking or controlling crime, it operated as a bounty to those base and designing men who went about not merely to tempt adults to the commission of crime, but (which was the most lamentable fact) to train up children to be criminals. Children of nine or ten years of age, instead of being indicted as they ought to be for picking pockets, were, frequently, in hopes of the reward, indicted for highway robberies. Not many months ago two children, one thirteen, the other nine years of age, were convicted of highway robbery, one of the witnesses being a child of six years of age; although he was as sure as he stood there, that were it not for the system of rewards their offence would never have been ranked so high with respect to the bill, he should not have done his duty as chairman of the committee on the subject, had be not introduced it to the House He was certain, that if the reward of 40l. was not offered such scenes would not so frequently be witnessed. Where persons were now indicted for highway robbery, they would, under a different system, be accused only of picking pockets. He could not agree with the hon. and learned gentleman that the antiquity of the laws by which such rewards were granted was anything in their favour. Such laws reflected no credit upon the wisdom of our ancestors. They were part of those rude acts by one of which the life of a man was only valued at five shillings. In conclusion, he trusted the House would see the necessity of going into the committee with the bill, at the same time that he did not mean to assent in that committee to many of the alterations which had been suggested. He thought that all the persons instrumental in the conviction of felons should have the expenses paid them for the time they had lost, but no further reward did he conceive necessary.

said, he was of the same opinion, with respect to rewards on conviction of felons, as his hon. friend who had just sat down. He had seen the effect of such a system in the plan adopted by the Bank. The Bank was known to give a reward of 7l. on the conviction of persons for passing bad money, and this very circumstance was the cause of a great number of the convictions which took place for that offence. A great many poor Germans, Swedes, and Irishmen, who were ignorant of the English language, were entrapped into the passing of bad coin, by persons whose only object was, the getting of the reward offered in consequence. He had detected one of his own officers at such practices, and had found it his duty to lay the whole of the system before lord Sidmouth. The officer whom he had so detected, he had of course discharged, but he was aware that the same nefarious system which he had mentioned, was still very often practised. With respect to other crimes, the anxiety to convict, where a reward was to follow, was most apparent, and those who were at all acquainted with the business of a justice room, would feel how great a struggle there frequently was to procure a commitment for a capital of- fence. If a person snatched away a lady's ridicule without much force in the street, it would not amount to a capital offence; but if the string of it happened to be twisted about her arm, and the slightest degree of force was used in getting it away, then the crime would be a highway robbery; and the greatest anxiety was often evinced on the part of some officers to have the party committed for the capital offence, in order to secure to themselves the reward. Indeed, so anxious were they to secure this object, that many of them were known to have employed counsel for the prosecution, in order to secure, if possible, the conviction of the accused party. Would the House of Commons consent to the continuance of a system which carried such horrid evils in its train? He trusted they would not; but that they would see the necessity of applying a remedy to that which so much demanded legislative interference.

hoped that the bill would be allowed to go into a committee, and recommended the consideration of the report of the police committee to the attention of members. It would show how much the country was indebted to the exertions of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennet) who was its chairman. He saw no reason why it should be supposed that the abolishing of the rewards on conviction would be injurious to the interests of public justice, if the expenses of the prosecutors were paid. Those who sought for rewards for the conviction of felons, had two scenes to range over—the town and the country. Now, in the country, there was no necessity whatever for such incitements to bring offenders to justice. Men were in general known to each other there; suspicious characters could not pass unnoticed, and, of course, honest men, for their own security, would pursue those persons who had committed crimes, and would endeavour to bring them to justice. But in great towns the case was different. Villainy, if not closely watched, might long go undiscovered there. If prosecutors were indemnified for their expenses, and positive rewards were removed, the system would be infinitely better.

observed, that no objection whatever had been urged against the principle of this bill, even by the learned attorney-general, who merely wished that a full discretion should be placed in the hands of the judge, as to what reward, if any, should be given. For his own part, he was most friendly to the measure. There was not a magistrate in the country who did not shudder at the cases which came before him, in consequence of the existing system.

said, that his hon. and learned friend had not objected to the abolition of fixed rewards. There might however, be cases where persons had meritoriously come forward, in which it would be very desirable that rewards should be given. It might be desirable that judges should have the power of doing this, and of determining, where reward seemed the only object of the parties who appeared against a prisoner, that it should not be allowed.

said, his great anxiety was, to give to the judges the discretionary power alluded to, and to remove fixed rewards altogether.

wished, that rewards should rather be granted for the detection of small, than of large crimes. If this course were pursued, new-fledged criminals would be prevented from persevering in a course of vice, and great crimes would not be so frequent. This plan, at the recommendation of Mr. Mainwaring, had been successfully adopted in the parish of St. George's, Hanover square.

approved of the bill; which was then read a second time.

moved, That the House should resolve itself into a committee on the Irish acts of the 21st, 22nd, and 26th Geo. 3rd, relating to partnerships.

thought the bill which his hon. friend wished to found on the acts which they were now to go into a committee upon, was not merely a bill for the employment of the poor, as the object of it was to legalize joint stock companies, leaving the parties to them liable only to the amount of their respective shares. A measure which allowed any number of persons to unite to carry on any trade or business on such a principle, he was of opinion, struck directly at the root of the trade and commerce of the country.

denied that his bill deserved the character which his hon. friend had given to it. He hoped it would be allowed to be brought in and printed. If it should be objected to, he did not wish to press it but for Ireland, where the importance of such a measure could not be denied. But when the intended provisions of it were known, he thought, at a time when millions wanted employment, there could be no hesitation in adopting it for this country.

The House then resolved itself into the committee, in which Mr. Alderman Wood moved, That a Bill should be brought to repeal the Irish acts of the 21st, 22nd, and 26th of the king, for the purpose of consolidating their provisions into one act, and extending the same, to promote the employment of the poor in the fisheries, trade, and manufactory of Ireland, by regulating and encouraging partnerships in that part of the United Kingdom."—The Resolution was agreed to.