ment, full compensation is carefully made to the owner; but what is that loss which is thus compensated to the opulent, com pared with the injury suffered by the poor man in the case he had mentioned? It will be said, that such a case does not happen often, but it sometimes happens, and in such cases a remedy ought, no doubt, to be provided. The difficulty was, that it was not every person acquitted who deserved compensation; because many persons were acquitted who are still guilty; acquittals from defects of form being unavoidable, even under the best ordered laws. Another difficulty was, that if such a remedy were given by law, it might have a mischievous effect towards those very persons, who are the objects of redress; because in some cases the evidence was so nicely balanced, that if the jury felt themselves reduced to the alternative of convicting, or of giving a reward to the prisoner by acquitting him, this consideration might have the effect of determining them to convict. The discretion of saying in what cases compensation should be given, could only be reposed in the jury or in the court; and he thought that there could be no hesitation between those two. The jury ought not to have their attention diverted from the single point of ascertaining the fact, of guilty or not. Fortunately, there was already in our statute book, an act which he could take as a model. Till the year 1752, no compensation was made by law to prosecutors for their expence and trouble in bringing offenders to justice; a circumstance which one might be surprised at, if such circumstances did not come very seldom before the legislature. Before such compensation was allowed, it often happened that the prosecution was by much a greater evil to the person, whose property had been taken from him, than that loss of property by the offence. The 25th Geo. II. chap. 36. § 11. placed it in the power of the court, upon the consideration of the prosecutor's circumstances, to grant him an order upon the treasurer of the county for his expences, and a reasonable allowance for his time. He meant to make this the model of the bill he proposed to move for leave to bring in. He hardly thought it necessary to anticipate any objection to this compensation, as being a new burden upon the county. Perhaps it might be thought

that the same reason existed for granting a similar compensation in cases of misdemeanour; but he meant to confine it to felonies? following the principle of the act of George II. and to give compensation to persons acquitted only in the same cases where it was already by law given to the prosecutor. He moved, in the first place, for leave to bring in a bill to repeal so much of an act made in the 8th year of queen Elizabeth, as takes away the benefit of clergy from persons convicted of stealing privately from the person. of another.

Mr. Herbert said, he was one of those who approved of the laws, and he thought that very good grounds ought to be laid down before any innovation was made upon them. He disapproved, in particular, of the proposal for making compensation to persons who had been tried and acquitted. He suspected that, in Ireland, many indolent persons would reckon it no hardship to be confined in a comfortable prison.

Mr. Wilberforce differed so completely from the hon. gent. who had just sat down, that he declared he had experienced the most unmixed satisfaction at what had fallen from the hon. and learned baronet. He well remembered that a great and lamented public character (Mr. Pitt), at an early period of his life, had intended to have a digest made of the whole of our criminal code, with a view of lessening, in a great degree, the number of capital punishments which it contained, and the objections to which it was impossible to confute. He congratulated the house and the country that an individual so well qualified for the task by his ability and experience as the honourable and learned baronet, had turned his attention to this most important subject.

Sir John Newport said, he could not help expressing surprise at what an hon. gentleman (Mr. Herbert) had stated as to Ireland. He was at a loss to know in what part of Ireland the prisons were so comfortable, as to prove an inducement to indolent persons wishing a confinement. He believed that the gaols were so far

from being commodious, that they rather excited horror and detestation, and many instances had occurred wherein men's toes were eaten by rats: was this the accommodation the hon. gentleman thought so agreeable as to be prized by the Irish people.

Mr. Herbert, in explanation, said, he still believed there were many persons who led a life of idleness, who would think themselves well accommodated in the gaols of Ireland.

Sir G. Hill contended, that in Ireland, and particularly in the province of Ulster, there was as much humanity on these subjects as in England.

The Solicitor General, professing, as he felt, the most unfeigned respect for the ability and zeal of his honourable and learned friend, who brought forward the present motion, was by no means satisfied that it would produce the benefit expected from it. He was not, indeed, prepared to say whether the good or evil it might produce was likely to preponderate. In this situation he should only lay in his claim to approve or disapprove of the measure, as, on more mature reflection, he should be of opinion it merited. Whether the attempt to grant compensation to persons acquitted of offences imputed to them, might not be productive of greater evil than good, was not now the question. He was certainly inclined to think, that however plausible the theory, the practice would be very injurious.

Sir Francis Burdett felt himself bound to pay the tribute of his testimony and approbation to the ability and motives of the honourable and learned baronet, by whom this motion had been made. Part of it, however, appeared to him to be so contrary to what he had always understood to be the constitutional principles of this country, that he could not sit still in the house, and, by his silence, seem to give a tacit acquiescence in the propriety of the proposition. He thought it his duty, therefore, to say, that from what he had heard, he was by no means impressed with a favour

able opinion of the bill proposed to be introduced. It was to his mind a grievous consideration, that after a verdict of acquittal by a jury of his country, it should be possible to tell any man that he was not honourably acquitted, but that an imputation of guilt still attached to him. What a grievous responsibility must, in this case, attach to the judge, who was, after a verdict of acquittal by a jury, to determine whether the acquittal was honourable or not. If this doctrine was to be sanctioned, in his opinion it was contrary to all the old established principles of the constitution of this country, and as such could not meet with his approbation.

Sir Samuel Romilly then again rose. He was sorry that he had been so much misunderstood by the hon. baronet, who seemed to conceive that, in the motion which he was about to submit to the house, any thing was included but the general question, whether persons accused, tried, and acquitted, should or should not be entitled to compensation for the injury which they sustained. The mode of deciding to whom this compensation should be awarded, or whether it should be given to all indiscriminately (which he should prefer to withholding it from all,) would be open for discussion when the bill was brought in. He moved for leave to bring in a bill to provide in certain cases compensation to persons tried and acquitted in a criminal court, for the damages sustained by them, in consequence of having been detained in custody and brought to trial.

The Solicitor General repeated, that in the view which he had of the subject, the evil would preponderate over the good. If the judge refused to give compensation, it would be indicative of the unfavourable opinion which he entertained of the innocence of the person by whom it was demanded; and would thus be placed in a very invidious situation. Besides, suppose a person were acquitted on an error in the indictment, before the merits of his case were investigated, how could the judge then decide on a claim of compensation? As a novelty, this proposition ought to be watched with jealousy. It appeared to him to be impossible to execute it without much mischief. If the compensation were to

be made out of the county rate, it might prove a great discouragement to prosecutions, or in the event of a trial, that circumstance might operate on some minds against the accused. He should vote against the bringing in of the bill.

Sir Samuel Romilly declared his surprise that his honourable and learned friend should resist the introduction of a bill, of the provisions of which he must necessarily be ignorant. With respect to the proposition being a novelty, it was to be regretted that there had not been more novelties of a similar description.

Mr. Leycester said a few words, in the course of which he expressed a wish, that his honourable and learned friend would withdraw his opposition to the introduction of the bill.

The Solicitor General acquiesced.

Mr. Croker entered his protest against being thought favourable to the principle of the bill, because he did not oppose its introduction.

Mr. Curwen approved of the measure.

Sir Fr. Burdett would certainly not oppose the bringing in of the bill.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer also declared that he would not resist the introduction of the bill, although he wished that the honourable and learned baronet had stated more fully the ground on which he proposed it, and the provisions which he meant that it should comprise. He was of opinion that the remedy proposed would be more injurious than the evil com plained of.

Mr. Fuller was afraid, that by introducing such complicated arrangements, people would be so puzzled that they would not understand the law at all.