Crime and the State 383The report from the two law officers also confirmed that the proclamation
had not established a time limit for the payment of these rewards, but that the
king could terminate the offer and ease the ‘burden’ on the treasury by issuing a
new proclamation cancelling the reward entirely or restricting payments in
some way. They did, however, add this warning—suggesting that they at least
believed that the existence oflarge rewards was discouraging robbers in the
metropolis: ‘whether such Repeal or Restriction may be advisable, or may not
rather be taken as an Encouragement to the committing of such Crimes, seems
to deserve great consideration’.^42
The supplementary reward had thus been continuously in effect for six years;
indeed it was confirmed in February 1726 in a royal proclamation issued to en-
courage the arrest of four men for the murder of a Southwark thief-taker, and
for subsequently appearing armed in public and ‘menacing several peace offi-
cers to deter them from doing their duty’.^43 If the government had intended to
terminate the offer of the general one-hundred pound reward for the prosecu-
tors of London robbers they could have done so simply by failing to renew it at
the death of George I in June 1727 , when the order and regulations he had pro-
mulgated came to an end. Indeed, the new king and his ministers did not im-
mediately reissue the proclamation. But they were persuaded to do so some
months on, presumably by anxiety about street crime in the following winter. A
new proclamation was published in the Gazettein February 1728 , reinstating the
one-hundred pound reward on the same terms as before, and again without ter-
minal date.^44 Any hesitancy that may have been felt in the cabinet or elsewhere
in the administration about renewing the large reward may have been simply a
matter of concern for the king’s finances. But it may also have included some
growing doubts about the wisdom of the policy more generally—and in particu-
lar, anxiety about the corrupting effects of these hugely tempting rewards and
the possibility that some defendants had been trapped into committing offences
by the men who brought them to trial, and that perjured evidence was being
manufactured to fit the needs of those bringing charges. Certainly, there
appears to have been a growing concern about some of the consequences of
large rewards soon after the proclamation was reissued—a concern that
merged in the late 1720 s and the early years of the 1730 s with disquiet about
other aspects of the government’s growing involvement in criminal prosecu-
tions.
(^42) T 1 / 255 / 55 ; summarized at CTP 1720 – 8 , pp. 410 – 11.
(^43) London Gazette, 12 – 15 February 1725 / 6. It also included this description of the four wanted men:
‘William Blewet is above Six Foot high, with black Eye-brows, his Teeth broke before, a hoarse Voice,
and about Twenty eight Years of Age; Edward Burnworth, a well set Man, of a middle Stature, fair Com-
plexion, and about Twenty five Years of Age; Emanuel Dickenson, a thin Man, about Five Foot Ten
Inches high, with a large Scar under his Chin, about Twenty two Years of Age; And Thomas Berry, com-
monly called Teague, a short Man with dark brown Cloaths, and a natural Wig.’
(^44) See above, n. 32.