498 The Police Report. [Nov 
and that it would be a sacrifice of constitutional principles, we beg those 
persons who think so to pause for a moment, and to consider whether 
there is not more of sound than of sense in such objections. Those 
privileges are not granted for the benefit of the worst foes of domestic 
security : the protection of constitutional principles is not meant to 
extend to the very cankers of society. Whipping at a cart’s-tail, and 
the punishment of the pillory, are, no doubt, great indignities, and gross 
violations of the liberty of the subject ; but nobody questions their appli- 
cability in certain cases. We would neither advocate such a search upon 
light grounds, nor have it exercised against any but persons whose past 
practices have justly rendered them objects of suspicion—nor even against 
them oppressively, or with more rigour than the ends of justice require. 
But if a robbery be committed to-night, why ought not the police, by 
day-break, or earlier, to have a full inspection of the holes and corners 
of Ikey Solomons, if he were here ; or of his successors, or of the respec- 
table solicitors,* or other ingenious gentlemen, who negotiate the com- 
pipes of robberies, whatever be their station? To the reformed it might 
e inconvenient ; but still not an unreasonable penalty upon their former 
offences ;—so far from hindering their return. to society, if any of them 
were so disposed (a case which we do not believe to exist), it would 
facilitate that end by proving their freedom from imputation ; while, as 
regards the guilty, it must be wholly without objection. 
_ It is not upon these occasions alone, that the right of search ought to 
be conferred upon the police. The inspection of “ marine store shops,” of 
pawnbrokers, of “ flash-houses,”’ and of every other place favourable for 
the escape of offenders, or the concealment of their booty, is not only 
necessary to ensure the successful operations of the police, but it is a pro- 
vision which the safety of society absolutely requires. 'The Committee 
allude particularly to the latter description of nuisance, on the subject of 
which they have collected a great quantity of evidence, which is little 
to be relied on. It requires, however, no evidence to shew that there 
are—for every one knows that there must be—in this metropolis places 
where the profligate and dissolute will resort for the purpose of meeting 
spirits congenial to their own. With these places, save for the purposes 
of inspection, the police have little to do. There must always be a great 
quantity of vice in action there ; but it is not in those places that such 
crimes as are most commonly brought under the cognizance of the cri- 
minal administration are perpetrated. The only danger that can result 
from them is when their orgies are celebrated in secret. To be known, 
disarms them of the means of offending; and to permit, or rather to 
compel, the access of the police to such places at all hours, although it 
would not put an end to them, nor alter their noisome and disgusting 
features, would effectually prevent their becoming dangerous. 
‘The Committee make some suggestions, the expediency of which 
admit of no doubt, for removing certain of the difficulties which, notwith- 
standing recent improvements, still disgrace our criminal jurisprudence. 
One of the chief difficulties in convicting forgers, seems to arise from the: 
necessity of proving either the making, or the uttering, of the instrument 
forged at the place laid in the indictment. An adept in his art, there- 
_ “ © These negociations have frequently been carried on by solicitors (few, it is said, in 
number) of that class whose practice lies chiefly in the defence of culprits, and commonly 
denominated ‘ thieves’ attornies.” Of these, your Committee believe some are respect- 
able.”(!)—-Report, page 11.. 
i ia ae 
