The National Register.
London, England, 1821-06-11 00:00:00

- • 1, Iri• .7

writing and the circumstances of the pairs forged upon.
A Birininehani ruffian, for instance, could uut know these
particulars ; besides, bills were not likely to be taken
without its being known that the parties came honestly
by them. If they were, it were the result of negligence,
if the assertion were not a libel on the whole mercantile
world; but surely they had not the right of requiring their
negligence to be guarded by the gallows. (Hear, hear.)
As to the exemption regarding will., he admitted that it
was one that did nut stand on the principle. It was an
exception; it was a peculiar case; it was one where the
party, or chief witness, must necessary be withdrawn.—
With respect to marriage registers, &c. they came within
the remarks which he bad made neon the subject of ex-
emptions. As to the provisions of the bill, regarding the
mime of trtteting, there he was inflexible—there lie felt
lie ought nut to make any concessiou.—The lion. member
then went into details of the number of prosecutions, exe-
cutions, aec. and concluded with moving, that the bill be
read a third time.
The ATTORNEY•GENERAL opposed the bill, taking
the sauce line of• at gintretit that bad been pursued by the
Solicitor-General on a former evening.
Mr. DENMAN supported the bill, complimenting the
manner iu which the great cause of au amelioration of uur
criminal code had been sustained by Mr. Buxton in a
previous stage of the measure. It was indeed gratifying,
lie urged, to behold the mild precepts of christianity
brunglit forviatd with so much eloquence and propriety
to promote the great cause of amending our laws.
After some father discussion, the house divided on the
question for the third reading. Fur the motion, 117—
Against it, Ill—Majority for the bill, 6.
When we were again admitted we found
Mr. CHIN'S moving to introduce a clause, exempting
from the provisions of the Lill any promissory nute ur bill
of exchange on any banker or bankers.
Mr. BARING opposed the clause, which went to ex.
elude any security Of any sort which could be drawn by a
banker. The house might deal with the hill as they
thought ',toper, but he was eunviuced they would not
adopt this clause.
Dr. LUSH INGTON opposed the clause. He WB9 con-
vinced the bill without it would he a Midi better security
for hankers than with it. Ile knew that marry bankers
would not prosecute offenders because of the capital punish-
ment. He had been informed of one banker who had hero
forged on for the sum of 10,0001. and would not prosecute
the offender from the reluctance be felt to ellltt the life of a
fellow-cvature.
Mr. Cripps and Mr. Martin supported the clause.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, nod the house
divided—For the clause (09—Against it 1044—Majority 7.
On the question that the hill i:o pass, the vinery ryas
cleared, and a division took place.—The numbers were—
For the third reading Ils—Against it 121—Majority 6.
The bill is consequently lost for the present. Adjourned.
TUEIDAV, JUNE 5.
At four o'clock the Speaker counted the house, as usual,
but as there weir only 30 members present at that hour, 40
being required, the house was declared to stand adjourned
till to-morrow.

.....---..--.
WEDNESDAY, JOKE 6.
Mr. SUMNER presented a petition from St. Michael,
Bermondsey, against the poor bill.
Mr. COKE presented a petition from Ilolt, Norfolk,
against the poor bill, praying that the house would nut
repeal the few remaining priileges of the poor.
Mr. COURTLNAY preseuted a similar petition from
Exeter.
Severally read, and ordered to be printed.
Mr. BYNG moved the third reading of the Metropolis
gas light bill.
Mr. C. SMITH proposed some clause, which was not
heard in the gallery.
Mr. BYNG opposed it.
Strangers were ordered to withdraw for a division, but
none took place. The bill was ultimately read a third
time and passed.
Mr. MANSFIELD presented a petition from St. Mary,
Leicester, against Mr. Scarlett's poor bill, urging that the
fixing of a maximum would have the effect of piononticing
a sentence of starvation on the poor in many instances.—
He also presented similar petitions from St. 'Margaret's
and All Saints, Leicester.—Severally read, and ordered
to be printed.
A petition was presented from manufacturers of wor-
sted yarn, praying a repeal of the tureign ivuol tax.
Sir F. BURIOLTI presented a petition from George
limy. a justice of the peace, complaining of toe
genet al practice and directions attic gaoler of LAUCIISIIIIC
gaol, in opening letters, and thus intercepting them. He
hoped the house would adopt measures to prevent suck
practices.
Mr. JAdIF.S said, that this was the practice to which
lie lied on a touucr occasion adverted ; his letters, for
instance, had been broke open. He considered suers
practice a hi each of privilege.
Mr. B. WILBRAHAM defended the practice, and said
it was conducted under the eye of the magistrate.
Mr. G. BENNF.TI considered the !nattier most repre-
hensible.—Petition referred to the co 11111 l nice on prisoes.
Mr. SCARLETT presented a petition trout sixteen of
the select vestry of St. Pancras, is lasour of toe pour
relief hill.—He also presented a siimiar petition trend
Northey, iu Sussex.—Ordered to be printed.
Mr. SCA RLETT then moved that the retort of the
poor relict hill be takers into further cunsideration on
Thin inlay se'riniglit.—Ordered.
S:r G. HILL moved for returns respecting Irish linen
exported, duties paid therms, aide. since l.sl:s.—Ordereil.
A petition 111/111 Henley, in HeatturtlNhire, was pre-
sented against Mr. Scarlett's pour bill.—Ordered to be
printed.
Mr. P. aIOORE presented a similar petition from the
mayor, baifl6, and coninioualty of Cut/curry.
The justice tit the peace bill went through a committee.
—Report to-morrow.
Sir B. WILSON presented a petition from inhabitants
of the tuwii and ireightrom hood of Liver pout, against the
poor relief bill, the petitioners thinking that tit (night to
he called the pima spoliation
Mr. SCARLET". said be hail Irn.ked at the petition.
mid that ail its arguments weie funned w ignurauce of the
facts. So far from deserving to be called tile pour spolia-
tion bill, lie maintained that every friend of the poor
would support the bill.
Mr, CALL/Uri said, he had uo notice that lie was
particularly informed on the subject; tort he hoped he
should hereaftershow that he knew soul thing theoretically
as well as practically. He should oppose the bill, and lie
trusted be should be able to convince the home that it
ought not to pass. (Hear.)