rose to present a petition from Mr. James Turner, a respectable person, who had resided for twenty-two years in Glasgow, carrying on the trade of a tobacconist. The petitioner complained, that he had been arrested on a charge of high treason, and had never been brought to trial, or received any compensation. The petitioner did not mean pecuniary compensation, for he was far above accepting any such; but he complained that his character had not been cleared by an acknowledgment that he was innocent of the charges for which he had suffered. He stated, that on the 9th of April, 1820, he was awoke in the night-time by officers, who entered his house with a warrant to search for papers and arms: he was taken immediately to the police-office, and was marched from thence, guarded by a file of soldiers; to the common Bridewell, where he was locked up in a solitary cell with a stone floor, and denied the use of writing ma- terials, as if lie had been the worst of felons. On the 14th, he was brought up from his cell to be re-examined, and was then told that he might be admitted to bail. Now he (lord A. H.) had always understood that high treason was not a bailable offence, and therefore he was at a loss to comprehend why that charge had been alleged against the petitioner, unless it was to afford a pretext for the cruelty with which he was treated. The object of the petitioner in making this appeal to the House was, to clear his character, which he had not been allowed to do by a trial in a court of law. He had therefore to assert that Mr. Turner was innocent of the crime with which he had been charged, and he hoped the lord advocate would feel himself called on to make this admission, which was the only reparation that the petitioner demanded, and to which he was entitled on every principle of justice. If the learned lord did not make a distinct avowal of his innocence, he should trouble the House still farther on the subject.

could not avoid calling the attention of the House to the time at which this complaint made its appearance: this transaction took place in April 1820, and eleven months had been allowed to pass before the present petition was put into the hands of the noble lord. During all that time the doors of the courts in Scotland had been open to the petitioner, if he thought himself aggrieved. This House had also been open to him; and if the petitioner had suffered the injury which he alleged, he owed it to himself to bring forward his demand for redress at an earlier period. As far as regarded himself—and he was the only party responsible—he was not bound to produce the grounds on which the charge of high treason had been made against this individual. But supposing that there were even no grounds at all, he was prepared to contend, that the petitioner should have called for redress in a court of law, where the lord advocate's mouth would have been open. He contended, that he had the best grounds for causing the apprehension of the prisoner, and denied that he was treated with harshness and severity; on the contrary, he was taken to the Bridewell instead of the prison of Glasgow through lenity, as there were then about one hundred culprits in the prison, and in Bridewell he had every accommodation which it was proper to allow. He added, that it was very extraordinary, while the petitioner complained of harsh treatment, a complaint was also made that he was admitted to bail, although the offence with which he stood charged was high treason. The reason why he was not brought to trial was an insufficiency of evidence, like what had happened in many other instances lately in England. If, however, the petitioner would bring the case into a court of law, he would prove that he had sufficient cause for acting as he had done, and would show that his depute had not only done his duty, but that if he had not detained him, he would have been guilty of gross misdemeanor. On the whole, he insisted that the petitioner had been justly arrested, and afterwards treated with humanity.

observed, that though he agreed that the case of the petitioner was not so severe as he had first supposed, yet he thought it was more severe than ft ought to have been. The reason why the petitioner had not brought his action was, his conviction (whether right or wrong) that he could not obtain justice in a court in Scotland against the lord-advocate. The charges against the whole of the persons arrested on the occasion alluded to were similar in their nature to those against the Spa-fields rioters. It turned out that the accused was only guilty of a riot. He was sorry that the learned lord had not taken example by what had occurred on that occasion.

related the circumstances which had given rise to the apprehension of the petitioner, and observed, that the Bridewell in which he had been confined having been cleared of its usual inmates, was more comfortable than the gaol. Such a variety of information, some good, some bad, was laid before the magistrates, against individuals engaged in the riots in question, that it was surprising that more had not been apprehended. ts

had not heard the learned lord say, that the deposition on which the petitioner had been apprehended, was on oath. If it was not, what could warrant such an infringement of the rights of the subject?

replied, that that was not the practice of the law of Scotland. The public prosecutor proceeded on the information which he received, and was of course responsible for his acts.

appealed to the House whe- ther it was to be borne that the rights and liberties of Scotsmen should be divested of those shields which the law had provided for Englishmen. It was deplorable to think, that any Scotsman could be dragged from his home and family, perhaps upon false testimony, and without the previous security of an oath to justify his detention. This was to be done, too, upon the mere responsiblity of an official person, and upon information of any kind. If any thing more than another called for a committee to inquire into the allegations of this petition, it was the avowal of authority just made by the learned lord [Hear, hear]. No man was safe under such a power. He (Mr. Hume) might himself, on going down to Scotland, fall tinder the lash of some official person, and be cast into prison, without ceremony, for the remainder of the session. If this was the law of Scotland, it would not be safe for him to pay a visit to his native country.

rose, in pursuance of his notice, to move an address to his majesty for the employment of officers on half-pay in preference to individuals who had never been in the army. The address he had copied verbatim from one carried unanimously in 1740. It was indisputable, that every possible attempt ought to be made to diminish the public expenditure, and the present proposition was one which would materially tend to the attainment of that object. After the discussion of yesterday lie would only observe, that the case of many of the officers on half-pay was one of peculiar hardship; for being once reduced, it was only by the greatest interest that they could again obtain employment in active service. The hon. member then moved, "That an humble address be presented to his majesty, that, for the present and future ease of his majesty's subjects, he will be graciously pleased to employ in his army such persons as now remain upon half-pay who are qualified to serve his majesty."

opposed the resolution, on the ground that it was uncalled for, and would therefore be a censure upon the commander-in-chief, whose conduct at the head of the army had produced the most beneficial effects, and was entitled to the highest praise. The noble lord entered into a calculation, showing that a great number of the officers on half-pay had retired voluntarily, and that of the remainder, as many were occasionally placed upon full-pay as could be expected, consistently with the regulations now acted upon in the army.

would be the last man to cast any implied censure upon the conduct of the commander-in-chief. The exertions of that illustrious personage in his department deserved the warmest praise. He could not, however, help observing, that many general officers were now living upon retired allowances of 7s. 6d. a day. This was a state of things which ought to be remedied, and therefore he felt it necessary to support the resolution.

supported the resolution. He conceived that there were many public situations, such as barrack-masters, &c. which might be filled up from the half-pay.

observed, that within the last five years there had been 1,105 cornets and ensigns appointed, of which only 54 had been taken from the half-pay. The House divided: Ayes, 14; Noes, 46.

after a few observations, proceeded to read to the House an extract from the sixth report of the Finance Committee, in which the committee recommended, that an inquiry should be instituted in the superannuation allowances, in order to find out those which ought to be continued, or abolished. The hon. member pointed out several instances of persons receiving superannuation allowances to the amount of 200l., 300l., 400l., and 500l. a-year, and who, at the same time, held situations of several hundreds, nay, in some instances, thousands a-year; and concluded by moving, as an amendment, "That as there are individuals in the List of Super annuations and Retired Al- lowances, who receive large sums for services of a few years, and who are at this time in perfect health, and performing duty in lucrative employments, it is expedient that this House, before granting any of the superannuated or retired allowances for this year, should appoint a Committee of this House, conformable to the recommendation of the Finance Committee of 1817, in their Sixth Report in the following terms: — 'Where the sum has been granted as a Superannuation Allowance to a person who nevertheless had health and strength afterwards to hold other active and lucrative situations, your Committee feel that the public have an undoubted right to revise the whole of such grants, and to curtail and modify them in a way which may answer to the intentions which would have influenced the original granters, if the whole case had been fairly before them; your Committee, therefore, feel it to be their indispensable duty to recommend, that such revision should take place before the annual estimates, in which the grants alluded to are comprised, are again presented to parliament."

in answer to the hon. member, read an extract from a ministerial circular, of July 1817, in which it was ordered, that no person upon the superannuation list should hold an appointment greater in emolument than that from which he had been superannuated, without being deprived of the difference between such situation and that which such person had formerly held.

observed, that there was at this moment under the consideration of government a measure for lessening the scale of superannuation allowances, with respect to persons who held public offices.

thought that the idea of the public paying for the payment of its own money was the most preposterous that could be imagined. He could wish the chancellor of the exchequer to bring the whole of the fees thus paid into one account, and then to debit them to the consolidated fund. If so desirable a simplification of accounts were adopted, the House would no longer be in the dark as to the gross amount of these fees.

said, the regulation was, that two-thirds of the fees payable on issues from the exchequer on account of the army, should be carried to the consolidated fund; and an act had been passed for that purpose. Now, what was the complicated state of the accounts of which the hon. member complained? The fees paid into the exchequer on military issues had, from time immemorial, been voted in the committee of supply, and were partly handed over to certain officers whose property they were; the remainder went to the consolidated fund.

said; his proposition was, that all fees received at any public office, to which the public had a claim, ought to be brought to one account, and carried to the consolidated fund. At present the treasury account comprised four documents, and nothing could be more complicated. The duties performed at the exchequer ought not to be paid by fees.

replied, that those fees were regulated by law, and were the vested rights of individuals. By interfering with them, the House would enter into a complicated inquiry with little prospect of advantage.

Wished to know whether, on the death of the persons now entitled to them, the fees would be abolished, or settled on their successors.

said, that in the event of new appointments, such appointments would be open to any pew regulation that might be considered necessary.

said, he had no objection to pay liberally persons employed in the public service, but he would wish to see them paid by votes of that House, not by fees.

said, there were two provisions in the bill which he conceived might be improved. By one clause the secretary for the home-department was empowered to re-imburse police officers for any extraordinary expense they might incur in the prosecution of certain duties, the fact being certified by the police-magistrates. This provision might be extended, with much benefit, to cases in which the parties aggrieved were unable, from their poverty, to employ officers. It was provided, by a second clause, that, in cases of petty misdemeanor, the constable of the night might suffer the party accused to go at large, on giving bail to appear at the police-office in the morning. It was not, however, imperative on the constable to do so. Now, he thought the constable ought to be compelled to receive bail in such cases.

expressed his surprise that the hon. gentleman should bring forward the measure in question in the absence of many individuals who felt a deep interest in its provisions. After all that had been said on the subject of the metropolitan police—after all the evidence that had been given to show the necessity of new-modelling it—he could not repress his astonishment, when he found such a measure proposed as that which the hon. gentleman had introduced—than which no measure could be imagined so utterly imperfect for any good or efficient purpose, or containing the seeds of so much real mischief. The objection which he and other gentlemen had to this bill was, that, in the dangerous situation in which the metropolis now stood, recourse had not been had to those salutary measures for checking the evil which a wise government would have seen and adopted. He was sorry that the step which he had suggested, and which experience had shown to be beneficial in the ease of the Prison bill, had not been adopted, namely, the sending the bill to a committee above stairs, where alone details could be examined in an effectual manner. The bill had been brought in without consultation with the magistrates of the metropolis, or with those who were most conversant with matters of police, except mere verbal communication with the home-office, when the police magistrates went up with their monthly reports. It was easy to say that a good police was desirable. There was no difference as to the end—the only difference was as to the means of attaining it. Now, this bill merely took away the office at Shadwell, and added one for Marylebone, but, with that exception, left the whole machine of the police, which had been proved utterly inefficient, just as it found it. No one could be ignorant of the vices of this system who had read the evidence given before the police committee, or the publications on the subject; in one of which, by a very distinguished member of the police magistracy, it was stated to be "essentially corrupt." The cause of this was, that there was great service, great temptation, and little pay. Yet with all this well known, the service, the temptation, and the pay remained the same. It was a fact which he would pledge himself to prove by the evidence of police magistrates, that there was scarcely a felon committed who might not compound if he had money; and the mode by which this was to be done was by corrupting the officers of justice. He did not mean to say that there were not among those officers most honourable and conscientious men. It was from them that he had received the clue of the greatest part of the information he had extracted before the police committee. They had given him the information; but they said their situation was such, that they begged he would not call them; but in every instance, the questions they furnished him with, drew such information from the magistrates themselves as corroborated their statements. The cause of the corruption was, that the officers were so ill-paid. The first police officer had only a guinea a week. They might get an additional allowance indeed at times, if they were employed by individuals, or appointed to attend the royal family. But there was no remuneration for danger, no allowance on account of wounds or injury to health, no pension on retirement when they were worn out in the service, no pensions to their family if they lost their lives. It was true, that the Crown, in particular cases, doled out pensions; but by law they were not entitled to any. The hon. member then read an extract from the evidence of Vickery, a most efficient and respectable officer, stating these facts and adding that he had been nearly cut to pieces in apprehending two men for a murder, and had been confined six months to his bed without receiving the smallest allowance. He spoke in behalf of those officers from justice to the public. They were put in a situation in which they had great power to do harm as well as good; and, if they did not get money in a fair way, they would take it by joining that conspiracy against the peace and property of the public, which it was their duty to frustrate.—The next point was as to the constables. In this department the same corruption prevailed. Three-fourths of them performed their duty by deputy. These were the men who were to be made by this bill judges at night, while they were to be thief-takers by day. A friend of his had published an excellent pamphlet, in which he stated, that a man had served as a constable whom he knew to be a thief and who had been convicted as a receiver of stolen goods. Yet this man threatened him with a mandamus for refusing to swear him in again as a constable. How could these men be otherwise than corrupt? They led a life of drudgery at the police offices and courts of justice, and they were left to pick up their living by setting their names at the back of indictments. There was a singular fact which illustrated this mode of obtaining a livelihood, which had been stated to him by a counsel who was in the habit of attending the Old Bailey. Before the bill which he (Mr. B.) had brought in, by which the reward money on the conviction of felons was abolished, there never was a case of felony in which there was not a man from some police office to prove the confession of the offender: since that time such a thing was never heard of. There were also the high constables. He would not say that they were all corrupt, but there were among them persons who had fled from their parishes to avoid their creditors. It was curious that these constables high and low, were almost always coal dealers. The coal trade attracted them all, as the magnetic rock in the "Arabian Nights" drew out the nails of the ships which happened to come near it. The secret of this was, that they supplied with coals the brothels and alehouses, and in return answered for their character, or screened them from detection. There was one of those persons who had been brought before the police committee who had been proved utterly unworthy of the office which he held, and who yet in defiance of law and decency, was kept in his office by the trading justices of his district. The best law in hands such as these could have no effect. In this instance economy was foolish. He did not wish to see a system of profusion; still less a police, which some gentlemen were advocates for, like that of Paris, in which the servant was set as a spy upon his master, and in which there was a prying and vexatious interference which kept the whole of the community in irritation; but he wished to see a system of police, of which they had something approaching to an example in the city of London. Within the city the officers were better paid. The result was, that Mr. Bill Soames, a gentleman with whose acquaintance he was honoured, did not like to ply his vocation within Temple Bar. The numbers of the officers at the different offices were insufficient and unequal. In the Marlborough street district there was a population at the last census of 270,000, now probably 300,000; yet, attached to this office there were no more than eight constables. Worship-street office district had a population of 163,000 and six constables; and Queen-square, with only 24,000 population, had the same number as the district with 300,000. At Bow-street, indeed, which was a favoured office, there was more expenditure. But Bow-street was not, as it was commonly considered, a head, or superintending office. It was the chief office: but there was as little correspondence between that and flies other offices, as there was between Bow-street and the police minister at Paris, They did not even send circulars to one another at the end of the day in case of signal frauds or offences. There was certainly now great care in the selection of persons appointed to the police magistracy, for which great praise was due to the noble lord at the head of the Home office: but this was of no avail, while there was no improvement among the officers. The great alteration of the bill was, to extend the power of apprehending persons who were described as reputed thieves in public places, to all parts of the metropolis. The late sir S. Romilly had contended, that the former limited power was most unjustifiable and unconstitutional. That part of the question, he should leave to others; but as to the practical benefit, he did not believe that the apprehension of a single thief would ensue from it. The power was put into the hand of every corrupt constable; and he had no doubt that the great sufferers would be Irish labourers, who were poor and destitute, and the practice would only be considered like the apprehension of vagrants, another easy way of earning five shillings. The discretion which they even now possessed was such as honest officers scarcely ever dared to exercise. This they had stated to him; but they had also stated, that there were needy and greedy persons enough about the offices who would exercise it. The hon. member concluded with observing, that if they had inferior police officers, well selected and adequately paid, and respectable magistrates, made as independent as possible of any interest, with such an administration of justice as would not indispose the public to the conviction of offenders, they would do more towards the repression of crime than by establishing the French prying system of police.

said, that the hon. gentleman had suggested many things that might hereafter be proper subjects for inquiry by a committee upstairs. At present the appointment of a committee seemed unnecessary, there having already been four committees at different times, and three very full reports. These reports had been attended to in the framing of this bill.

objected to the principle of several of the clauses, especially those respecting the power of taking up persons suspected to be vagrants. He also observed that the latter part of the bill was wholly unconnected with the former; so much so, that he would suggest the propriety of dividing it into two distinct hills. If the first part relating to the payment of salaries, could be brought within a reasonable compass, no gentleman could object to it; but, as it stood at present, he must oppose it.