THE

HE horror impressed by the murders committed in the metropolis at the close of the last year, had occasioned many voluntary associations for improving the nocturnal security of the inhabitants, which in general appeared to be inadequately provided for by the existing regulations of the police; and government at length thought it expedient to take up the matter. On January 18th Mr. Secretary Ryder rose in the House of Commous to move for a committee to examine into the state of the nightly watch of the metropolis. After adverting to the alarming fact of the late murders, and to the unprecedented multiplication of offences of a less horrid description during the last three or four months, he observed, that in former times each parish provided for its own watch, and it was not till 1774 that an act passed which applied only to 15 of the most populous parishes, and which appointed directors and trustees under whose control the watch, patrole, and beadles were placed. It could be no wonder that this was found insufficient since the vast increase of the metropolis, and many instances might likewise be mentioned in which the provisions of the act were evaded or neglected.

appointment of the committee, it would be for that to decide whether it were advisable to alter the system entirely, or whether it would be sufficient to enforce the present act. For his own part, he rather inclined to enforcing the present system by adequate provisions, than to establishing a new one. He concluded with making the motion above stated.

Sir Samuel Romilly expressed himself much surprised at the confined terms of the motion. Considering the great alarm that had been excited, he should have thought that a committee appointed on the occasion would have found it necessary to inquire not only into the state of the nightly watch, but into the causes of the alarming increase of felonies and crimes. That such an increase existed was proved by the returns lying upon the table, which he had moved for, and which showed a regular progress of crimes in London and Westminster for some years past. There had been committed to take their trial at the Old Bailey for felonies of various kindsIn the year 1806

899

Corrected to 1242

+ Corrected to 1207

into

into the causes of this augmentation, of which many might be mentioned, but at present he would only notice a few. The honourable member then adverted to the system of punishment by promiscuous imprisonment, which associated together the most hardened offenders with those convicted of comparatively slight crimes; to the constitution of the police itself in giving rewards to the officers for the detection of offenders of a certain description, of which the effect was, suffering a growth and multiplication of crimes instead of their prevention; and to the depravation of morals by the encouragement of lotteries. After dwelling at length upon these topics, he concluded with hoping that the motion of his right honourable friend would be withdrawn, and submitted in a much more comprehensive form.

Mr. W. Smith followed in confirmation of the necessity of such an extension of object as that proposed by the last speaker. The late murders, he said, originated in a set of villains about the town whose existence was not imputable to any deficiency in the nightly watch; and unless some change could be produced in their disposition, the only effect of a more vigilant watch in the metropolis would be to drive them into the surrounding villages.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a number of remarks to show that the considerations above suggested could not properly be referred to the committee proposed, the object of which was to provide a practical remedy for an existing evil.

Mr. Abercromby observed, that two opinions had been advanced,

one that the proposed object of the committee was sufficient, the other that it was insufficient, for remedying the existing evil. He contended that nothing had been said to prove that the state of the police ought to be excluded from the consideration of the committee, and thought that the propriety of extending it to that object was obvious. After various remarks to enforce this opinion, he moved, as an amendment to the original motion, the addition of the following words: " and also into the state of the police of the metropolis."

Mr. Ryder acquiesced in the amendment of the hon. and learned gentleman, provided he would consent to substitute the word "further” for “also,” in order that the primary object of the committee might be that which he thought of great practical benefit. (To this alteration Mr. A. consented). He proceeded to take notice of the accusation brought against the police officers as being never disposed to detect offenders unless when stimulated by a great reward. This, from the best information, he stated to be unfounded, and he was convinced that greater efforts had never been made to detect offenders than those in the metropolis during the two last months.

Sir S. Romilly reminded the right honourable secretary, that a reward of 7007. had been offered on the late occasions for exciting their activity, a consequence of which had been the apprehension. of a great number of persons upon bare suspicion, one of whom was the brother of one of the murdered

pronouncing the proposition of the right honourable secretary the silliest that could possibly have been made. After supporting this assertion by ridiculing the notion of a grave inquiry into the state of the nightly watch, he digressed to the conduct of the Shadwell magistrates on the late atrocities in that quarter, to the suspicions thro n on foreigners aud Irishmen, and the harsh treatment of the latter, to the neglect in suffering Williams to commit suicide, and the unseemly parade of his funeral. He concluded with recommending to the right honourable secretary, that as he had shown to-night that he had not as yet thought at all on the subject of the police, he would begin to think of it with all possible dispatch.

Other members joined in the debate, of which it is unnecessary_to relate any further particulars. The question was then put and carried, and the committee was named, in which were the members for London, Westminster, Middlesex, and Surrey.

With respect to further proceedings on this subject, we only find that on March 24th the committee appointed for the purpose, presented to the House an elaborate report, in which they suggested a variety of regulations and improvements; that a bill was framed upon these suggestions; and that on July 4th, upon the presenting of a petition against it from one of the London parishes, several members expressed their disapprobation of its provisions, on account of the expense, and the new aud extraord nary powers which it would create, and recommended its postponement.

No further mention of it occurs during this session.

On January 21, Mr. Brougham, pursuant to notice, called the attention of the House of Commons to a question which he stated to be simply this, whether the crown had the power to use certain sums of money without any grant from parliament, or even without its privity? That, to which he meant particularly to direct his observations, was the enormous fund called the droits of admiralty, connected with which, however, were the crown revenues arising from the duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster, the 4 per cent. duties raised in Barbadoes and the Leeward Islands, and the surplus of the Scotch revenue. After some statement relative to these last funds, he went to that which was his peculiar topic, viz. the droits of the king as lord high admiral of England, supposed to be vested in the crown, because for the last century the office above mentioned was not conferred away from it. To this belonged all sums arising from wrecks and goods of pirates; but the great bulk of it arose from prizes. All ships detained previously to a declaration of war; all coming into port from ignorance of hostilities between this and other countries; all taken before the issuing of proclamation, and those taken by non-commissioned captors, were sold, and the profits arising from their sequestration composed the droits of admiralty. By the last returns laid before the House on May 30, 1810, it appeared that the sum of 7,344,6777. had been paid in on this account since 1793, and it

might now be fairly stated at eight millions. Thus the crown was receiving an annual revenue of more than 180,000/. from a capital said to be vested in it of eight millions. The questions for the House to decide were, therefore, whether by law the crown was separately possessed of these funds; and if this were the case, whether it were safe for the constitution that such a law should remain in force any longer?

With respect to the first of these positions, though he did not mean to dispute the general maxim that "all prize vests in the crown," yet he adduced various facts from history and law, to shew that regal droits and impositions were cousidered as destined to the service of the country. He next adverted to the proportion which existed between the parliamentary grants and the revenue of the crown previously to the revolution. Before that period, the expenses of war were not regularly supplied by parliament, but generally by the crown, from those funds which it was now contended were the private property of the king. present, the country furnished all the means of war, whence it seemed just that it should receive all the profits of war. His next argument was drawn from the fact, that parliament had, at various periods of our history, interfered with the prerogative of the crown when it turned into abuse, of which fact he adduced several instances. He then proceeded to remark on the mode in which these droits were received and applied. By whomsoever they were received, they never went into the exchequer, nor were issued thence, but were

At

paid from the Bank of England, on the authority, not of the privy seal, but of a warrant under the sign manual only. That this manner of issue was unconstitutional, he conceived there would be little difficulty in proving; and he referred to lords Coke, Clarendon, and Somers as authorities to the purpose. Conceiving that he had sufficiently supported the positions above laid down, he now called the attention of the House to the practical observations arising out of the abuses to which the fund alluded to furnished occasion. In the first place, it gave the crown an interest in going to war, and commencing hostilities in a way the least honourable to the national character. To illustrate this fact, he alluded to the Dutch war in the reign of Charles 2nd, begun for the sole purpose of intercepting the Smyrna fleet; and he did not hesitate to attribute to the same disgraceful origin, the capture of the Spanish frigates at the time when a negotiation was carrying on by the ministers at both courts. He then pointed out the means it afforded of accomplishing some vile job, or paying some worthless minion whose claims the minister would not dare to bring before the cognizance of parliament. It was enough for him to have shown that this fund was liable to be made subservient to corrupt purposes, without being obliged to prove that it had been actually so applied; yet, as he seemed to be challenged to produce facts, he was by no means unwilling to produce them. He then, from the papers on the table, made various observations on the many large additions to the civil list in the present reign by the sums voted to

supply

supply its deficiencies,and the great excess of expenditure still acknow. ledged, which had been paid out of this fund without application to parliament; and he went through several of the items of grants from the admiralty droits, which appeared to him of an unconstitutional kind. He concluded a long and eloquent speech with moving a string of resolutions. The first of these declared "That the possession by the crown of funds raised otherwise than by the grant of supplies from the commons in parliament assem bled, and applicable to purposes not previously ascertained by parliament, is contrary to the spirit of the constitution, liable to great abuses, and full of danger to the rights of the subject, and the interests of the country." The subsequent resolutions went on to assert the duty of the House of Commons to inquire into the nature of such funds-to state what the funds are which are called droits of admiralty, and their present amount, and also the fact of their having been disposed of with out the interference of parliament and to assert the intention of the House forthwith to proceed to inquire into the best means for bringing these funds under the controul of parliament, for the purpose of applying them to the public service, and of providing such additional sums, if any, as may be necessary to the main tenance of the royal house hold.

Mr. Brand rose to second the motion. He thought it almost an axiom in the constitution that this House ought to have the disposal of all the revenue of the crown, and

he recapitulated some of the obser— vations of the former speaker.

Mr. Courtenay said, his principal object in rising was to protest against the principle of having a stipendiary king, with an income fixed by parliament, and never to be exceeded. He thought the honourable and learned gentleman's supposition of the prerogative of the crown being abused in the manner represented, improbable, and the danger theoretical; and he declared his intention of voting against the motion.

The Attorney General began with considering the first question stated by his hon. and learned friend; whether the crown had a right to the revenue in dispute? In order to show that his Majesty was not dealing with, as his own, what was not his own, he would refer to the civil list acts. In the 1st of the present the present king, by by which 800,000l. was settled upon him for life, as in former cases, many revenues were collected into one aggregate fund and named specifically, but among them the droits of admiralty were not included. He then took a review of the prior acts on that subject to that of William and Mary, in none of which that fund was alluded to; it therefore remained with his majesty as before. The next consideration was, whether it ought to be taken from him? If a case had been made out by his honourable friend imputing to ministers the fact of having corruptly taken and applied that fund, there would have been some ground for his motion; but as the question stood, they were to decide whether they would take it away, because it was pos