The Sun.
London, England, 1830-05-25 00:00:00

FORGERY.

Petitions praying for the mitigation of the punishment
of Death in cases of Forgery, were presented by Mr.
Leonard, from Coggershall ; by Mr. Protheroe, from
Neath ; by Mr. Pendarvis, from Redruth ; and by Mr.
Fowell Buxton, from Bridgewater, Lothbury, Basing-
stoke, Rochdale, a place in Berkshire, Great Yarmouth,
Blackburn, Clonmel ; from the Protestant Dissenters of
Brighouse; from the Lewisham-street Chapel, West-
minster ; from Ryegate, Chudleigh, Monmouth, and the
inhabitants of London and Westminster.
TRUCK SYSTEM.

Mr. BENETT presented a petition from the Inhabitants
of Bradford, Wilt,hire, against the Truck System.
FOUR AND A HALF PER CENT. DUTIES.

Mr. HUME said it had been his intention to make a
specific motion to have the opinions of the Law Officers
of the Crown on which the Government had came to a
resolution relative to the Four and a Half per Cent. Duties
laid before the House ; but understanding that it would
be more convenient to submit a motion on that subject at
some future time, giving a proper notice, he should,
therefore, only move for a Copy of the Minute of the
Lords of the Treasury under the authority of which the
Customs Duty on the Sugar sent to England in payment
of the Four and a Half per Cents. had not been pa,d since
March, 1828.

_
Sir JAMES GRAHAM seconded the motion. He
could not avoid taking that opportunity of expressing his
extreme satisfaction at the vigilance of his Hon. Friend,
the Member for Aberdeen, who had with gt eat patience
exerted himself in attracting the attention of the House
to this subject, which he considered as of vital importance.
It was of importance not only as regarded the disposal of
the duties of the Customs without the sanction of Patna-
' melt, but as involving on the part of the Crown Law-
yers a claim for a more arbitrary and monstrous exercise
of prerogative ; in which light, perhaps, his Hon. Friend
would not regard it as so important, since the accession of
the House of Brunswick to the Throne. It was such a
violation of constitutional principles that he should think
he did not discharge his duty to the public if he did not
support his lion. Friend. If the Ministers did not give
notice of their intention to bring in a Bill, before the
close of the Session, to limit and restrain the prerogative
on this point, he should consider it his duty to move a
resolution to that effect on the Motion for the House to
go into a Committee of Supply. If the Crown were ad-
vised to stand in the extreme of its prerogative, nothing
more could be done but that, following its example, the
House must stand on the extreme of its privileges, and
withhold the supplies by a motion of adjournment. If his
lion. Friend would turn the matter over to him, he would
endeavour to bring it before the House and the public in
a plain and intelligible shape.
The motion was then agreed to.

Mr. HUME then moved—" That an humble Address
be presented to his Majesty, praying that he would be
pleased to lay before the House an account of the proceeds
of the Four and a Half per Cents. during the last ten
years, how they were appropriated, the balance that Wam
paid into the Exchequer, the deficiencies (if any) and
how they were to be made good." The Hon. Member
said it was impossible that his lion. Friend could regard
the subject as of greater importance than he did. lie
should be very happy, as be had much other business on
his hands, and his taking up this was turning over a new
leaf, to resign it into the hands of his Hon. Friend. At
the same time he could assure his Eion. Friend, that he
would give him all the support in his power.
Sir J. GRAHAM thanked his lion. Friend for aban-
doning the subject to him. His Hon. Friend, however,
would excuse him if he did not bring forward the subject
in exactly the same form as he would have done. His
motion would he a resolution something to the effect of
what he had already stated.
The motion was then agreed to.
EAST INDIA COMPANY.

On the motion of Mr. STUART WORTLEY, there
were ordered to be laid before the House Accounts both of
the Commercial and Territorial Branches of the East
India Company, sinca May 1, 1814.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER then
moved the Order of the Day, for the House to resolve
itself into a Committee of Supply.

Sir J. NEWPORT rose to .ask the Right lion. Gen-
tleman a question concerning the transmission of tnone)
from Ireland.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was not

then capable of giving an answer; but he should melt
probably be able in a day or two.
ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM then asked the Right 1101
Baronet, the Secretary of State, what arrangement he
meant to make as to the business of the House?
Some conversation took place in a low tone of ♦oice he'
tureen the Right Hon. Baronet and Mr. Hums, the re-
sult of which we understood was, that the House wouid
adjourn on Thursday to Wednesday next.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM then gave notice, ‘! That he
would, on the motion for the House to go into a Commit-
tee of Supply on Friday se'nnight, move a resolution on
the subject he had before mentioned."
MEXICO.

Sir ROBERT WILSON rose to call the attention of
the Right Hon. Baronet to the important subject on which
a petition was presented to the House on Thursday, and'
which concerned the credit, the interest, and the prospe-
rity of the country. He was then gla.l to hear from the
Right Hon. Baronet, that it was the determination of his
Majesty's Government not to infringe that system of neu-
trality it had always acted on towards Spain and the nen,
States of South America. The Right Hon. Gentleman
had then stated, that if it ever were proved to him that
Great Britain had interfered to restrain those new States
in the exercise of their belligerent right., he should feel
himself bound to give them protection against any opera-
tions directed against them from the points we had 'pre-
vented them from attacking. The Right Hon. Gentle-
man had then stated the reason why he did not believe
that the country hat ever laid any interdict, or intended
to pay any interdict, on the warlike operations of those
States. The reasons assigned by the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet were rather inferences than facts, and they, were
all derived from the circumstance that there was no cor-
respondence between Mr. Canning and the South APlgn
rican Ministers on this subject in the Foreign Office.
This might, perhaps, be accounted for by the fact
that the agents of the South American Govern-
ments were not recognised till 1826. The first official
document of the Mexican and Colombian Ministers was
dated July 19, 1826. But though there were no official
documents of our interference contained in the Foreign
Office, he could show what was the impresiii-on Made by
the conduct and language of our Government on the
South American. The Hon. and Gallant General then
quoted a variety of documents to slow that the new
States of South America, relying on the friendship of
Mr. Canning, which was to them invaluable, had defer-
red to his opinion, expressed out of the best motives—the

motives of humanity to the Blacks, and a due regard to
the interests of the British West Indies—that the Crowe
of England would not see with pleasure any attack made
by them on the island of Cuba. The Gallant General
also quoted several official documents, drawn from the
Chancelleries of Mexico and Bogota, to show that the
Governments of Mexico and Colombia had understoOd
Mr. Canning to interfere, and that they had suspended
the great expedition against Cuba, on account of Mr.
Canning's wish. The Gallant Officer also quoted the cor-
respondence between General Michelena and that officer's
Government, to show that he had made a communicatica

to it to that effect, as coming from Mr. Canning. Ele
had had a conference with Mr. Planta in 1825, Mr. Can-
ning being then sick, and had in consequence, at the re-
quest of that gentleman, given him in a memorial, to
which, it was true, no answer had ever been returned,
but which must exist still in the Foreign Office. The
Gallant Officer also referred to the Proclamation issued
by General Santa Anna, to show that the expedition
had been reAdy to sail for Cuba, and had been aban-
doned at the representation of the English Govern-
ment. It was true, that at a much later period the Earl
of Aberdeen had informed these States and the public
that they might attack any of the Spanish possessions they
pleased ; but when he did that, these States were weakened
in their resources, and had no fleets; whereas when Co-

lombia and Mexico were desirous of attacking Cuba, they
had, for such Stites, a respectable navy, while Cuba was
almost destitute of troops, and was altogether incapable of
making any defence. The Gallant General, after quoting
a variety of other official documents, supplied to him by
the South American States, concluded by observing that
these things must convince the Right Hon. Baronet that
these New States bad understood the language and conduct
of Mr. Canning to amount to an interdict laid on them not
to attack Cuba.
Mr. PLANTA begged merely to observe that he bad
no recollection of the transactions to which the Hon. and
Gallant Member alluded, nor were there any copies of
correspondence relating to it in the Foreign Office. As
to the communications front General Michelena, he recol-
lected having received them at the Foreign Office, and
forwarded them to Mr, Canning, but no answer in writing
was returned to them.

Sir ROBERT PEEL was sorry that his Hon. Friend
(Sir R. Wilson) had renewed the discussion on this sub-
ject, and he was confident that the Hon. Metnh.r and the
Representatives of the States of Mexico and Coiombia

were not consulting the true interests of those countries,
by wishing to fasten on England an engagement to enter
into a defensive alliance with them against Spain ; an alli-
ance which no Minister of this country ever contem-
plated, and which he repeated, it was injurious to the
interests of those States for their Representatives to
insist on, through any construction put on the corre-
spondence of Mr. Canning. There never, indeed, was
anything clearer than that Mr. Canning had not,
by any language in any public document, interdicted
_ _ .

Mexico and Colombia frObi; the fair aggression of a
belligerent against Spain, and that he had not entered
into any obligation, either formal or moral, to assist those
States against Spain in consequence of their refraining
from their contemplated attack on Cuba. What, however,
had his Hon. Friend done ? He had produced no authen-
ticated document from the Foreign Office—no paper
bearing the signature of Mr. Canting; but he had read to
the House the memoranda of a series of conversations
which the Mexican and Colombian Ministers are said to

have had with Mr. Canning ; but memoranda of conver-
sations which that Minister never saw, and which he had
not by his signature acknowledged to be genuine. The
Hon. Member however said, that the reason why these
documents were not to be fr and in the Foreign Office
arose from the circumstance of the Minister of the New
States not being at that time formally received in this
country, or acknowledged by the Minister of Foreign Af-
fairs. Whether, however, they were Ministers or Agents
there could not be the slightest doubt, that if any such ad-
mission as that attributed to Mr. Canning had been made
in these conferences, some notice of it would have hen
found in the Foreign Office. In the discussion on a
former evening, he (Sir R. Peel) had stated distinctly,
that although Mr. Canning declared an invasion of Cuba
in the manner and under the circumstances of that con-
templated by Mexico, would be displeasing to Great • Bri-
tain, still no interdict of any kind whatever had been laid
ou either Mexico or Colombia from prosecuting the war, it
they thought proper. When General Santa Anna had as-
sembled about 700 men in the province of Yucatan and
issued his proclamation, this country and the United States
of America did protest, as they bad a right to do, against
the attempt to conquer Cuba through an insurrection of the
slaves, but they did not attempt to restrain the fair exercise
of their rights as belligerents when exercised according to
the acknowledged rules of war against Spain. Ilis
Friend (Sir R. Wilson) said, however, that Mr. Canning
advised the Mexicans not to invade Cuba. Why at that
time the New States of America were not recognised by
this country; but, even if it had been, be expressly de-
nied that Mr. Canning adopted any other course than that
of expressing the dislike of this country to that mode of
warfare which the States seemed disposed to &doll. The
Right Hon. Baronet here referred to time instructions risen
by Mr. Canning to Mr. Dawkins, when he attended the
Congress of Panama, and read, in addition to what he had
stated on the former evening, a concluding sentence of the
same instructions, in which Mr. Canning says, that much
as this country would regret an expedition like that medi-
tated by these States, it had no right to controul the right
of one belligerent to make war against another. This was
the clear and express language of Mr. Canning at the very
time when the Hon. Member supposed he was interdicting
the invasion. He would state, however, one other fact
which was convincing mm the subject. In 1526 MexieJ
and Colombia again determined on fitting out an expedition
to blockade the Ilavannah, and it was announced at me
same time that the President meditated the collection of a
body of troops.to be marched front various places, in order
Ito co-operate with the blockading squadron for tare reduc-
tion of Cuba. At that time Mr. Canning was informed
of the expedition, and the British Minister wrote to hinm,
communicating the nature of the expedition, and asking
• for instructions. In answer to the demands fur instruc-
tions on those points which were likely to ari,e with re-
ference to the interests of England, Mr. Canning mei ely
replied, that it was necessary for the writer to make a
division somewhat more distinct than he had made, belin e
he could answer his questions ; but not one word was to
be found of the existence of any interdict to the inva-ion
of Cuba—a fact which could not have at such a moment
been passed over in the instructions fur the government of
the conduct of the British agent, if that interdict had been
ever put forth by Mr. Canning.
Sir R. WILSON here said that the blockade was pre-
vented, however.

Sir R. PEEL said the blockade was prevented by in-
ternal dissensions among the States, but not hy the iniei-
lerence of England. The Right lion. Gentleman then

tondo
protes
of co,
kind, 1
alliane
of the

Sir
Match
Cuba.

Thi
A. GI
Res
tute,

critnir
Oa
refuge(

gradua
The
lotions
other 1

of prix
other

O
defray
Comm

Mr.
Comm
time fi
The
On

Aft
agreed
orderer

CHAD
stood 1
of pros

Sir
the sul
d ri
hemp

Sir
Hon. ,
Comm
shoUld
went a
4
that ei

Sir
to moll

Mr.
to a C
would
—but
mangy
the pc
would
and of

Sir.
Chair.
the ini
notice
was iii
that C 4
'louse

fixed f
The c

Sir
with
Priem]
the fr(
delay
as it c
On
Into

On
of Ex,
of Aloi

and pr
degree
vast 1

and sti
Past pi
in the

...__.#1....'"

ion
cut
t of
een

concluded by repeating his_ former declarations, that he
protested against the receptiOn of unauthorised memoranda
of conversations in the diicussion of a question of this
kind, for the purpose of establishing a claim to a defensive
alliance; which never was contemplated by any Member
of the Government of this country.
Sir R. WILSON intimated an opinion it was only in
Match last that Mexico reseived permission to invade
Cuba.
Sir R. PEEL repeated that they knew they were at
iiberty to do so throughout the whole period, and that in
1826 they showed a disposition to act on that opinion.
Sonae stress had been laid on the supposition that Mr.
Canning advised the Mexicans not to invade Cuba. He
denied that Mr. Canning did so; but if he had, he (Sir
It Peel) was prepai•ed to contend, that at the time when
Mr. Canning was endeavouring to prevail on Spain to re-
"guise these States, he had a perfect right to advise the
Mexicans to abtain from offending Spain by an attack on
Cuba.

Mr. HUSKISSON saw no inconsistency between the
statements of his Right Hon. Friend and the documents
Produced by the Gallant General, although they proved to
demonstration that Mexico and Colombia, in deference to
the feelings and wishes of Great Britain, had abstained
from the course she had previously determined to pursue.
He would be one of the last to say, however, that the
deference then paid to the wishes of this country bound it
to any defensive alliance. God forbid that he should
argue anything of the-kind. All he wished to impress
on the House and the Government was, that the conduct of
Mexico at that time gaveher a claim now on our interference
to put an end to a state of things prejudicial to the
Prosperity of Mexico, and of all the States of Europe.
By that interference at the present moment we would con-
fer a benefit on commerce, on humanity, and Even on Spain
herself.

UPP
The House then' S
went into aLY.
A. GRANT- in the Chair. Committee of Supply. Sir
Resolutions, granting 8,000/. for the iefirge to the desti-
tute, 4,000/. for the American loyalists, and 8,339/. for
criminal lunatics, were then agreed to.
On the resolution that 5,712/. be granted for French
refugees, for Protestant Dissenting Clergymen, &c.,
Mr. HUME begged to ask in what manner the sum of
1,695/. was disposed of to the Dissenting Clergymen.
The sum was so small that it could do good to a very few,
and 'he feared it brought benefit merely to those who dis-
tributed it.
Mr. DAWSON replied, that many of the persons in
question were in great distress, and that the money was
distributed among them with the utmost impartiality by
the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Lord Chancellor.
Mr. HUME was of opinion that the payments might be
gradually discontinued. -
The resolution was then agreed to; as were also reso-
lutions for granting 45,000/. for his Majesty's foreign and
other secret services, and 76,000/. to defray the expence
of printing Acts of Parliaments, and Bills, reports, and
other papers, for the two Houses of Parliament.
On the resolution for granting the sum of 8,000/. to
defray the expence for printing under the direction of the
Commissioners on public records,
Mr. PROTIIEROE expressed his hope that a new
Commission, composed of men of diligence, and who had a
tote for the subject, would be appointed.
The resolution was then agreed to.
On the resolution for granting 96,850/. for providing
stationery, printing, and binding, for the several Public
Departments of Government, including the expence of the
establishment of the Stationery Office,
Mr. HUME said, that there were many objectionable
items in this grant. There was the Royal Military Asy-
lumns, 295/. ; the Commander-in-Chief's Office, 225/.
Then there was the Army Medical Board, 7001. while the
Adjutant General's Office was only 380/. There was also
1201, for the Insolvent Debtors' Court—the only Court
that was allowed the expence of stationery. All these sub-
jects demanded inquiry.
After some further conversation, the resolution was
agreed to ; and the House having resumed, the Report was
ordered to be received on Wednesday.
In answer to a question from Mr. GORDON, the
CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (as ;we under-
stood the Right Hon. Gentleman) intimated his intention
of proceeding with the Supply on Friday se'nnight,
REGISTRAR AT MADRAS BILL.
Sir .1. MACINTOSH, before he made his motion on
the subject of hie Forgery Bill, wished to postpone the se-
cond reading of the Registrar at Madras Bill. Ile would
he Most happy to bring it on at any hour on Friday se'n-
I 'tight, if he might be permitted to do so.
FORGERIES' PUNISHMENT RILL.
11 Sir R. PEEL, adverting to the intended motion of the
011. and Learned Gentleman, for an instruction to the
emroaittee on they Forgeries' Punishment Bill that they
should have power to reduce the standard of capital punish-
roent at present imposed by the Bill, suggested that it might
1) 4 preferable course a more to ove an amendment to
that effect in the Cominittee.
Sir J. MACIN TOSH thought that it would be better
to move the instruction to the Committee.
Mr.SPEAKER said, that when instructions were given
to a Committee, it was g.-nerally to do that which they
would not have the power to do without those instructions
—but the instruction which the Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man-wished to move was to do what the Committee, had
the power to do without such instruction, and therefore
would restrain their power, as showing the prior judgment
and opinion of the House.
Sir J. MACINTOSH bowed to the opinion of the
Chair. The only object which he had in wishing to move
the instruction to the Committee, was to give full and fair
notice on that sole point on which any important difference
as likely
acid
Was
course, to Occur.' He would now, however, relinquish
ouse should
out would move an amendment as soon as the
A go into the Committee on the Bill.
fixedlr. P. THOMSON wished some express day could be
Th for proceeding with the Registrar at Mdr Bill.
e Company were put to a great expense by the d lay. Sir J. MACINTOSH was most anxious to proceed
with it. He appealed to the recollection of his lion
Friend whether he had not been an importunate beggar to
the House for the opportunity of proceeding with it. The
~ delay was as inconvenient to the other parties concerned
as it could possibly be to the Company.
On the motion of Sir R. PEEL, the House then went
into a Committee upon the Forgery Bill.
On thereading of the clause, declaring that the forgery
of Exchequer Bills, Bank Notes, Orders for the Payment
of Money, &c., should be pimished capitally.
Sir J. MACINTOSH said that he should, according
t° the suggestion of the Chairman, proceed to act in that
Committee as he should have done with respect to the in-
struction lie was about to move in the House itself; and
as there had yet been no full debate upon this great urea-
"re, he hoped the Committee would excuse him, if he
considered himself in the same situation, now that they
Were in Committee, as he should have considered himself
tf he had brought on this discussion upon the motion for
he second reading. In making the observations that oc-
curred to him upon this subject, he should confine him •
self, as narrowly as possible, within the limits of the ques-
tion before the Committee ; but at the same time lie must
declare, that it was impossible to consider that question,
Without considering the general principles of legislation,
and especially those principles of legislation which were
more peculiar to this moat important class of offences. It
Was needless for him to enter into the history of the various
Parliamentary controversies in which, since the time of
that great man, Sir Samuel Romilly, within the last
btwenty years from that time to the present, they had often
een engage"l. He could not compare—or, rather, be
could not contrast the temper and opinions of these two
periods—without a strong feeling of exultation, which he
had no language adequate to convey as powerfully as he
was affected by it to the House. He remembered reading
of those times when the most ancient, the most barbarous
punish:news were resorted to without reprobation, and when
even the lifeless remains of those who had been no worse than
adventurers in the troubled sea of politics were exposed to
the perpetration of every horrible indignity ; w het: eweln,
Prince of Wales, and Wallace, of Scotland, were insulted
irr this manner, because they had been noble enough to
ItsPd up bravely in defence of the liberties of their country.
9lle recollected the time too when the most respectable
raracters in the country, both as Statesmen and as
Lawyers, were against that for which he now asked, and
Would have contended as boldly for the preservation of the
old and barbarous modes of punishments, of these worthless
remnants of barbarous times, as for that of Magna Charts
and the Bill of Rights. Yet, lie was happy to say, he
i had lived to see the day when these opinions were changed,
nod when the Minister of the Crown came forward to
state that he was desirous of mitigating the severity of
capital punishment as far as the general safety would per-
suit The object of a I punishment was to protect the life
dolle property of all at the expence of the least possible
degree
the of suffering to any
Of the members of society. Such
was n., . • •
and strun
I vading opinion of the men of the present day,
gIY did
past periods, it contrast with the opposing temper of
How different were the modes of thinking
in the barbarous times of Edward 1.,
when
severity wa;
I universally adopted, and in these i civilized periods in
which we saw Ministers and
Statesmennre t
asserting their title
to glory by their disposition
to assist inMitigatin. the old
severity of the law. 'cPrisea juvent aliis at ego nunc
denique jurabo natum." When he considered the small
beginnings with which that intrepid, that wise and mag-

nanimous man, Sir Samuel Romilly, entered en his
career of legal reform—and when he recollected that
at the distance of between ten and twenty years
from the death of thlt noble-minded man, the Bar
of the House was crowded with petitioners, who entreated
the House not to be satisfied with the propositions
of a liberal and reforming Ministry, for that the people
were ripe for better things, and were desirous of them—
he almost thought that he lived in two different countries,
and conversed with people who spoke two different
languages. It was needless for him to express his grati..
tulle to the Right Hon. Gentleman, or his admiration of
the conduct that Right Hon. Gentleman had pursued ; he
had achieved by his reforms, and by his plan for further
reform, a title to fame, which no transient measure of
political skill, however splendid or dazzling, could ever
confer ; he had placed his name among the law-givers
who had reformed the Penal code, and who had there-
fore been among the most signal benefactors of mankind.
He bestowed not these praises grudgingly or reluctantly—
they came from his heart, and he trusted they would he
So considered.—(Hear, hear.)—He now begged to call
the attention of the Committee to that which was of such
great importance to the petitions. He was well aware,
from the twenty years' experience he had acquired in that
House, that the words of petitions were not always so
important as they sounded, but in the present case, there
was no qualification, whether with regard to the charac-
ter of the petitioners, or the society they constituted, that
was wanting to give them claim to the highest degree
of importance. Their interest—their supposed interest—
their long-believed interest—that which had long been their
cherished and guarded interest and right, they now freely
gave up--they begged it might be taken from them ; and
' when they appeared at the Bar of the House with such a
request, he certainly did conceive that they came there
under circumstances different from those of most other
Petitioners. He had had the honour of presenting the
petition of the inhabitants of Edinburgh—of a large
body of the Clergy—and of all- the Protestant Professors
of the University. There was a fact of considerable im-
portance with respect to the meeting at which that petition
was agreed to. A gentleman of high talent and character
was urged to take the chair at that meeting, and he de-
clined to do so because the petition did not go far enough,
as it did not pray for the abolition of the punishment of
death in all cases of murder and murderous attempts.—
It was such a fact, connected too with the language of the
petition, that showed the House was behind the country—
not the country behind the House, in the progress of ex-
tended and liberal notions on this subject. To the Edin-
burgh petition there were attached the names of seventeen
out of eighteen bankers in a city in which the principal
trade was banking, and these petitioners, like all the rest,
prayed the House to deliver them from the pretended pro-
tection—but the real danger, of capital punishment. His
Hon. and Learned Friend and Colleague, who was not now
in his place, had presented the petition of 700 bankers in
England, who all urged the Parliament to deliver them
from those laws against forgery which, from their undue
severity, palsied the arm of public justice, afforded security
to the forger, and endangered the property of the honest
man. There were three sorts of petitioners--he would
not undervalue any one of them, but undoubtedly they
ought to be received. differently. There were some who
complained of grievances affecting only themselves; there
were others who complained of matters in which they had
a public interest ; but there was a third class, whose peti-
tions were entitled to the greatest weight, for they came
forward to support a great public principle, apparently
against their own immediate interest. The bankers of
Edinburgh, of Glasgow, and of all the other towns of
England, had respectively petitioned, and had com-
plained of the continuance of that punishment which,
while it endangered their property, destroyed the faci-
lity and ease with which the law ought to be capable
of being applied for their protection. The last kind
of petitioners were these whom he now called to the
Bar of the House as witnesses in his behalf, and that
Member of Parliament would be a most hardy man who
should venture to dispute the evidence of one thousand
such men on such a subject. These persons must form
the prosecutors, the witnesses, an.) the jurors, in cases of
accusations of forgery, and they must be better acquainted
with the sentiments of jurors than any Members of the
House. They told the House, as the result of their ex-
perience, that they believed that the present law was an
insumbrance, not a protection. So odious was it to them,
that they would not prosecute another, and yet it was to
men of that class that the Government affected to say,
" we know your interests better than you do yourselves."
The Government were in error—they were blundering
when they affected to say to such a body of men, that
they claimed that which, if granted, would materially in-
volve their security. The people were too humane for
these laws, and if the Legislature did not determine to
re-barbarise them, they must give way to the demanded
reforms. Among the petitioners were three eminent bill-
brokers, one of whom had discounted twenty-two milli-
ons of negotiable paper money, and he understood, that
if the three were taken together, they discounted fifty mil-
lions annually of neguciable securities. It would be a
waste of his voice and of their time to make anything more
than a bare allusion. to such a fact. His proposition was
only to return to the ancient system of our laws, which
England only began to deviate from in the 18th century.
At that tune a false and exaggerated notion of the value of
severity spread over Europe. The first change made in
the law was with respect to the crime of forgery. When-
ever this country had been the object of severe or hos-
tile remarks among the people of the continental nations,
that fact bad been selected against us as a proof that,
as blinded worshippers of Mammon, we neither valued
blood nor truth, but would sacrifice both without remorse
to the preservation of our wealth. Such severity as ours
was sought for in vain in the laws of France—in the laws
of Holland—in the laws of Prussiain the laws of every
country and place in Europe, from Hamburg to Naples,
from the north to the south, in none of which had it been
found necessary to cement by blood, or to secure negotiable
paper by a law of so barbarous a kind. The repeal of
this law would be no novelty. The Right Hon. Gerrie-
mon had alluded to the law of France—he was mist mken
in what he had said of it ; the two cases in which for-
gery was there punishable with death were those of the
forrry of the paper of the Treasury, stamped with their
stamp, or of the negociahle paper issued by time authority
of the Government. From a return male in the year
1828, it appeared that there had been only two cases
prosecuted—they were cases in which the prisoners were
accused of contreAgon des billets de Banque ; so that in
those instances the forgery was of paper, not merely per-
' mitted, but authorised by the Government. These were
the only two cases of prosecution for that crime which had
occurred between the period of promulgating the Code Na-
poleon and the year 1828. But even these were acquitted,
so that whatever was the letter of the law, it was never
executed. Those acquittals could be imputed to nothing
but a popular prejudice against the laws; for it was im-
posible to believe that the cases should have been wholly
unsupported by proof. In all the cases provided for
by the present Bill there was but a small number
of forgeries, and yet there were no punishments
of hard labour for life ; there were some punish.
ments of imprisoment, and others of hard labour for
years. France was a country that was not to be
blotted out of the book of experience of mankind. We
knew it better t'ian any other foreign country, and though
the negotiable paper property of France was not so large as
that of this country, yet it possessed a-great and flourish-
ing circulation, which it protected, without the effusion of
blood, against those dangers which were supposed likely
to fall upon this country if we made this projected ex-
periment in the laws. In the penal code of France the
forgery by u public officer, in his official duty, was punish.
able with hard labour for life—a circumstance which
showed most strongly the nature of the code. That code
was in force in Holland; and from Hamburg to Naples
there was not a single country in which paper-money was
protected by the punishment of death, except in the Brie
tieh dominions. The advocates of capital punishment
were bound to show that the most important interests of
society would be endangered by the alteration of the pu-
nishment ; for, to show a mere inconvenience was not
sufficient for their purpose. The burden of proof did not
lie on the men who argued for the abrogation of these
laws, but on those who contended that the evil was so
great, there were no other means of preventing it but by
capital punishment. Unless that absolute necessity was
proved, he contended that all other execution; for the of-
fence were, in the eye of morality and religion, positive
murders. In the year 1826 there was a return of nine
persons who had been sentenced to death. No favourable
circumstances appeared in their various crimes, but. they
all had recourse to the Cour de Cassation in appeals upon
technical difficulties, Time delay thus occa,ioned afforded
the opportunity of investigating their cases, and they were
found innocent, and every one of them was pardoned on
the avowed ground of their innocence, without any blame
being attached to the Judge, the Jury, or the Government.
If, in such a country, and with such Judges as France
possessed, these errors were committed, the knowledge of
them ought to induce us to avoid inflicting those punish-
ments which, whenever irrevocably in error, did an ir-
reparable wrong. A French- gentleman, who had be-
stowed great attention on this subject, had said that no
one at Rome or Naples dare give any assistance to the
execution of the laws, for such was public justice in those
countries that it did not at all stand well with the public.
Whatever tended to produce a schism between the execu-

tion of the laws and the feelings of the people did great
injury. If equal punishment were inflicted on unequal
crimes, gross, scandalous, fl Trent, notorious injustice
must be the consequence ; and it must be a fault in every
system of legislation, if it did not confine the highest
penalty to the greatest delinquency. The punishment by
imprisonment was divisible—different portions might be
applied to different degrees of criminality ; but there was
no divisibility in the punishment of death. The feelings
of this later age did not allow of the barbarous aggrava-
tions of death practised by our ancestors, and we hanged
alike the sheep-stealer and the parricide. As long, then,
as this system of equal visitation for unequal guilt con-
tinued, we were the authors of the most crying injustice.
If our ancestors inflicted more than mere death by adding
the cruelty of torture, at least they had the excuse that
they thereby obs rued something like a scale of punish-
ments. He thanked God that that barbarous custom
was abolished, and since now it was impossible to in-
flict more than death for the greatest crimes, our only
resource was to inflict less than death for offences
of minor aggravation. The various existing and an- •
thentic tables showed the difference between a sound
and a degenerate administration of criminal law.
During the last seven years only twenty-four per-
sons had been executed for forgery, while the whole
number of persons convicted of that crime was
217—50 that every offender knew that there were eight
chances of esciee to one of suffering. The result. was
widely different in cases of murder : in the last seven years
there had been 99 convictions, and no less than 88 execu-
tions, indicating a perfectly sound state of jurisprudence;
for the Crown had exercised its prerogative of mercy only
in a few cases—that by their mitigating circumstances well
deserved it. In France, with a population of thirty-one
millions, in the year 1825, there had been 110 executions ;
of those 90 were for murder or murderous offences, and 20
for all other crimes. This indiCated a just execution of
the law—an application of the last punishment to a class
of offences that naturally required it, and to which it
ought to be confined. The population of England and
Wales, on the other hand, was twelve millions and a half,
and in the year 1825, there were eleven criminals executed
for murder and murderous offences, and 39 for all other
crimes; hence it was obvious that a great deal more blood
was shed by the law in the defence of human property
than in the protection of human life.—(Hear, hear.)—lt
was an ancient and venerable maxim of religion, and it
ought to be so of law, " Whoso spilleth man's blood by
man shall his blood be spilled ;" and this maxim was well
observed in France, where, with double our population,
they had only half our crime. What did he infer ?
That that which seemed to afford in this country tes-
timony of immorality of life, was, in fact, nothing but
an impeachment of the wisdom of law.. It would re-
quire but little trouble and examination to establish
that the difference between the two countries in this
respect was owing to the difference in the adminis-
tration of the law, and not to any difference in the
disposition to criminality. The execution of the law
had undergone some surprising revolutions ; and Sir M.
Hale made it a matter of boast that in his time in England,
every judgment was executed ; yet 150 years after the death
of that great Judge, the multiplication of capital punish-
ments had produced a directly opposite result ; and Eng-
land at this moment was distinguished from every other
country of Einsipe by the uncertainty of her administration
of criminal justice ; the effect had been, lie was ashamed to
say, to introduce into the kingdom a system at variance
with the first principles of free government--he meant
that none of the facts or circumstances on which the life
or death of man depends, were ever known to the mere
spectators of these public proceedings and solemn trials,
which seemed to be decisive of his fate. The life or
death of a man in the City of London depended upon the
investigation of his conduct by a secret body, unknown to
the public, unknown to the criminal, and who might be
able, for any thing that could be shown to the contrary,
to explain the very fact for which, unexplained, he was
borne to execution.—(Hear, hear.) The first question
to be asked was, is the primary punishment peculiarly
adapted to the offence of forgery? He put it to any man
accustomed to watch the springs of human action,
whether. he was of opinion that the mere fear of death
operated upon forgers ? They were commonly persons of
some education, holding a respectable station in society, and
who, having got into difficulties by love of ostentation, and
an indulgence in prodigality, were determined to make a
bold thrown in the game oflife, and to risk all upon a single
hazard—gut cito mors, aut victoria laita. The sting of
death was not the bare loss of life, but circumstances of dis-
honour and disgrace attending it. Those who fought so
bravely and so frequently in the last war had exposed their
lives to greater danger than the most abandoned and reck-
less criminal, but they had marched into the field without
reluctance, encouraged by a sense of duty, and in-
cited by a love of their country's glory. The boldness with
which the peril was incurred might be equal in both cases,
though in the one it was the minister of crime, and in the
other of the noblest virtue. It was a mistake of lawgivers
and tyrants (who sometimes affected to be lawgivers), when
they thought they deterred from crime merely by investing
the punishment of death with terror. Martyrs and heroes
had willingly incurred the penalty, however - dreadful it
'might have been rendered, for Heaven had fixed the bounds
beyond which disgrace could not he inflicted. In contem-
plating the suffering, the mind turned with detestation from
the author of the punishment, while it watched with pitying
veneration the agonies of the sufferer. The philosophic
criminal might even imagine that at least there was some-
thing dignified in dying well, and that part of the infamy
of his punishment would be compensated by the firmness
of his endurance. For these reasons be thought the punish-
ment of death ill adapted to, the crime of forgery ; and it
was to be recollected that it was not mere justice, but ma-
nifest, signal, and conspicuouejustice, that was to satisfy the
public. Hence it might be laid down as a maxim, with
very few exceptions, that the acts for which the punish-
ment of death should be applied, should not only be in the
highest degree dangerous to society, but attended with cir-
cumstances of violence and blood, leaving a deep impression
on the mind, and reviving indignation at the offender at
' the recollection of his crime. He did not mean to under--
value the guilt of forgery, but he contended that, accord-
ing to the general feeling of mankind, it was not that
species of crime which, by subsequent reflection upon its
circumstances, recalled a sense of the justice of the
punishment. He now came to the proposition he intended
to offer by way of amendment. He proposed that
Courts of Justice should have power to inflict imprison-
ment and hard labour for a term of not more than four-
teen years, giving also liberty to inflict solitary confine-
, ment in cases absolutely, requiring it; or he would give
Courts the power to tratrport the prisoner to any place to
be named by his Majesty and his Privy Council beyond
seas, for a term not exceeding 14 years; or, lastly, lie
would arm Courts, in cases of rare occurrence, requiring
more than usual severity, with authority to inflict both
punishments, the one to succeed the other. He proposed
these alternatives, in order that there might be many de-
grees of punishment, as there were many degrees of guilt;
and as it was an experiment, lie was desirous that it should
be made in a manner best fitted to ensure success. An-
other amendment would be, that the power existing in
Colonial Governmoents, under certain circumstances, to
remit the punishment, should be taken away in cases of
forgery, and that no sentence should be remitted but by•
decision of the King in Council. It hail been said that
if this experiment failed, return to the old system was im-
possible. But what did that assertion prove? If there
were any foundation for it, it showed that such was the
abhorrence now entertained of the infliction of capital
punishment in cases of forgery, after the experience of its
inadequacy, that a future Parliament will find it impos-
sible to re-introduce it. It might be said by the Right
lion. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) that the time was not yet
come when it would be fit to make so great a change;
but he (Sir J. Macintosh) would ask, in reply, where was
the danger, if the House endeavoured to quicken the pace
of Ministers upon this subject? The House of Commons,
speaking the sense of the people of England, might
very properly urge the Members of the Cabinet to in-
creased speed; and, although it was very possible that
ere long Memliers would have to return to their consti-
tuents, they might very fairly urge, that if they haul erred '
it was in favour of the cause of humanity, and to prevent
the commission of crime. The House would err, in de-
ference to the general testimony of all who were best ac-
quainted with the subject, and who, in the petitions, had
given the same evidence that they would have delivered
upon oath. When the question was discussed in 1822,
the case of the forgery of wil!s had made a great impres-
sion adverse to a change in the law ; a return had been
made of all the convictions since that year for the forgery
of all instruments ; it appeared that there were only ten
eases of the kind, and was it worth while to preserve the
severity of the law for their sake? Important changes of
opinion upon this subject had already occurred. He re-
collected that when he (Sir J. Macintosh) proposed, in
1821, to lessen the punishment for the forgery of mar-
riage registers, it was vehemently opposed on the ground
that it opened the door to the fabrication of evidence of
marriage, legitimacy, and the transmission of property;
yet only a short time since the Right Hon. Gentleman
(Sir R. Peel) had reduced the crime to a misdemeanour
without opposition. The real question was, whether there
was any great danger in endeavouring to ascertain by ex-
perience whether this country can have its • property . pro-
tected with a considerably greater severity of punishment
than was known in any other State of Europe ? Even if

his amenlmsnta were adopted, the infliction would be
heavier than it WAS at present on the Continent. He
thought that tl err would be no such danger, and there-
fore moved an amendment upon the original motion, the
nature of which he bad already opened.
The question was then put on the amendment, when
Sir ROBERT PEEL rose and said, that if he had ex-
pected, when be came into the House that evening, to
find the question of forgery treated as a party question,
and as one by which the'fate of a Ministry might be de-
cided, such an impression would have been removed by
the great, not to say lavish, encomiums bestowed on his
humble exertions by the Right Hon. Gentleman. But he
entered the House with no such impression, knowing, and
he rejoiced at it, that the time was at length come when
they could consider all questions connected with the cri- ,
minal law of the country not as party questions, and not he
liable to have their attention diverted from the sound
reasons which ought to determine their conduct, and
from the interests of those classes for which they were
called on to legislate. He wished to defer to the views of
the Right Hon. Gentleman and the great body of the
petitioners; and if he had been compelled to adopt a con-
clusion different from them, he could assure them that it
was after deliberate consideration that lie had attained to
the honest conclusion that it would he better to preserve
the punishment of death for forgery than abandon it.
He had no motives to make him wish to differ from them,
and he had no previously formed theories which he was
anxious to support. From the Right Hon. Gentleman's
general doctrines respecting the punishment of death.he
did not dissent ; but he wished to state his opinion,
with the reasons and the facts on which it had been
formed, on the question whether. the punishment of
death ought to be preserved or abandoned. There
were no reasons that he knew of, nor any circum-
stances in his situation, why he should not be ready to
adopt the views of the Right Hon. Gentleman. By the
Bill which be had introduced into the House he proposed
to meliorate one part of our criminal code, and his course
had uniformly been towards the mitigation of its severity.
When he came into office, seven years before the present
period, the criminal law of Great Britain exceeded, in seve-
rity, the criminal codes of every other part of Europe, and
he had then thought it ought to be meliorated. He made
it, since be had been in office,, the great object of his ambi-
' tion, not to set the example of meliorating this code, but
to follow the example previously set by others. He had found,
however, that the habits and usages of the country were
adapted to and formed on the severity of our code, anti he
found it necessary to proceed in the mitigation of this
severity with great caution. He thought it advantageous
to continue the severity of the law in its letter, but gra-
dually to meliorate its practical application. The Bills he
had introduced into Parliament, consolidating the criminal
laws, had, in part, abandoned capital punishment; but
he looked forward to a time when the criminal law, after
the consolidation of its different parts should be car-
ried into effect, should be again brought under
their consideration. When that was the case, the
House might, with propriety, take the question into
consideration, whether further mitigation of its seve-
rity should not be attempted. In his views he bad
adopted the recommendation of the Committee over which
the Right lion. Gentleman had presided, anti had endea-
voured first to simplify the law, in order to its mitigation
afterwards. What he had done to consolidate the law
was not to prevent the whole subject being hereafter
brought under review ; and when the simplification was
complete, a further mitigation of its severity might he
found expedient. If he resisted, at that time, the propo-
sition to abolish the punishment of death for forgery, he
must appeal to the course ho hail pursued, and to the prac-
tical application he had made of thy law, to show that he
was not attached to that punishment. He had not con-
tented himself with a bare expression of his opinion on
this point ; he had, by the advice he bail given to the
Crown, carried those opinions into active operation. He
found that in the seven years previous to 1822, when he
came into office, the number of execations, in England and
\Vales, was 731, while the number of executions since
1822—that is up to December, 1829—was 433, , showing
a considerable diminution.. The number of executions in
London. and Middlesex in the former seven years was 192 ;
in the latter seven years, or during the' period that he had
been in office, it was 120, showing a diminution of 72.
He was afraid that this diminution could not be laid to the
account of the diminution of capital offences, as they
hail been rather on the increase. Perhaps, indeed, the
mitigation of the severest of the laws might have en-
couraged and facilitated prosecutions, and so more capi-
tal crimes had been prosecuted, but he d d not be-
lieve that the diminution of executions could be ac-
acounted for by the diminution of capital offences. He
thought that the House, when it took the subject into
its serious consideration, would pause before it gave
its consent to abolish the punishment of death for for-
gery; and he wished first to state the reasons, anti after-
wards the facts, which ought to be well weighed by Hon.
Members before they consented to abolish the capital
punishment for this crime. With respect to the crime
itself, there were great reasons, considering the magnitude
of the gain which might be acquired—the facility of per-
forming the crime, the difficulty of detection, and the
temptation , marked it with peculiar characteristics. As
an illustration of the magnitude of the sums to be obtained
he would refer- to the case of Fauntleroy, the amount of
whose forgeries was not less than 353,0001. The Bank
of England was answerable fur forgeries committed by this
individual through a series of years, and actually paid a
sum of 353,000/. Looking at the temptation, he would
observe, that it came across a man overwhelmed with dis-
tress, who, by the mere presenting a draft at a banker's,
might be relieved from his difficulties, and find himself
suddenly in the midst of prosperity ; and then, if he did
succeed, there was the difficulty of detection. In this.
crime there was none of the revolting circumstances which
alarmed mankind. There was no confederacy necessary.
The cri ninal did not need to disclose Lis guilt to any par-
ticeps criminis; there was, consequently, an extreme diffi-
culty of detection, the draft was paid by the hanker's clerk,
who might, perhaps, he induced in a case of need, to cancel
it, or to deliver it up. Then the signature might be so well
imitated that no precaution could detect the forgery at the
moment. No vigilance, therefore, could guard against it;
and when it was once committed there might be no re-
medy. No receiver, too, was necessary, as in the case of
many other crimes ; and the property, when once obtained,
could not be made evidence against the criminal. But even
the crime itQelf might he committed by an innocent man,
and a man ignorant that he was committing a crime. A
man presented a draft at a hanker's ; it was paid in the
hurry of business over a-crowded desk ; the person who
presented it might not be the forger, but somebody whom
he had employed. The real guilty party might escape, if
the stake were large enough, to the Continent; he might
leave the country ; hut even if lie did not do that, the
difficulty of detection was very great. • It depended ob-
viously on a question of personal identity. The clerk who
paid the draft must, in the first instance, recognize the man
who presented it ; and if he were only sonic ignorant and
innocent agent, be must recognize his employer. Thus,
it was a question of double identity; and that must be de-
cided, before the guilt could be brought home to any per-
son. . When he recollected, therefore, the magnitude of the
gain —the great temptation—the difficulty of the detection
--that there were no confederates necessary, and no violence
to alarm people, as in a burglary or murder ; coupling all
these circumstances wi,h the large properties concerned,
lie thought they invested this crime with a peculiar and ex-
clusive character—a character which belonged to no
other species of crime against which the Legislature had
to guard. Before the House resolved to abolish the
punishment of death, the Members should be well convinced
that they could find a more efficacious punishment, such
as that recommended by the Right Hon. Gentleman. The
House, bsfore it came to such a resolution, would pause,
and it would deliberate long before it adopted the propo-
sition of the Right Hon. Gentleman. He did not by any
means undervalue the public sympathy in giving force to
qluieestmiouna,tthboeugaihle,
due
laws
respecto r i•en
the opinions
ut nugatory;us
~of
to p petitioners, i tai rid :rest: ed
butwliiteh did all
not find them conclusive against this view. The peti-
tioners, generally speaking, were not the persons most in-
terestedwere all the arguments he could urge, he must abandon
if he looked only at indi-
vidual
of the punishment of death prevented
the defence of the law—but if it could be made out that
commission of the crime--if public morals were pro-
nt. If a regard to that
itne r te,
a punishment—if iasthi mu
increase
iuff
the without tha t
ttptell:iceenteist binentir theferaerwoofuhtlhhies
offence—
if these things could all lie made out, then there would
be very strong, and, indeed, very powerful reasons for
maintaining the punishment. If it could be shown that
the fear of death did Operate to prevent the commission of
the crime of forgery, aura if property were defended by
it__which was not immaterial—he conceived that
they would not be justified in abolishing it. If he could
also show that those who petitioned against it were
not the parties most interested in it, he thought the House
would have good reasons for withholding its assent. The
chief petitioners in favour of the measure most interested

in i t were the country and provincial bankers; but tit.
direct
st, uwas dtittsilom,t
,hmeterhedyeg
firae.tta,e in ,
t interestte, te l
centre
interest esr
(e
0, tfaf had
and a, the br, in
.ta
eno bankers
drawnirltsl ta
mvoofe
on
raeLlo,ot to
tnrd‘ be
comonns ..
negoti-
ated through the whole country, but what found their war
to London. The danger of for,fery, therefore, was ten fold
greater in London than in any other place. Since the
abolition of the small notes also,, the number of forgeries
committed on country bankers had considerably diminished.
Forgeries of Si. notes, and of notes to a larger amount,
had never been so frequently forged as the one pound ani!
two pound notes. It might, at first view, appear a-
easy to obtain fifty pounds or twenty pounds for signing a
name, as IL or 21. ; but it was to be remembered that the
large sums caused the notes to be examined. The small
notes also were taken by a different class of persons—
they were passed among the working classes, who had
not time or skill to examine them or to detect the for-
gery. Moreover, generally, the 51. notes were made pay-
able in London ; and if they were once paid, the Lon.
don banker was responsible for the suns. As to cheques,
which were the great instruments forged, the country
bankers hardly use them. 'They were not acquainted
with cheques as they were used by the London bankers.
Besides, in their narrow circle, every person who drew
cheques was known, and forgery was much more difficult
than irt London. He believed that a forgery of a cheque
in any provincial town, except Bristol, Liverpool, Man-
chester, and one or two others, was hardly known. Thus
in estimating the interests of. London and country tankers
in this question, those of the latter would be found to be
comparatively small. The argument in favour of the prin-
ciple be was opposing was this, and he wished to state it
fairly. The severity of the law, it was said, defeats its
own object ; that it prevents prosecutions ; that it leads,
when criminals are prosecuted, to their acquittal; that it
enlists in their cause the sympathies of juries, and the sym-
pathy of the public, and, leaving a prosecutor without
hope of obtaining a conviction, gives him an interest in
avoiding a prosecution. Ile admitted the existence of tt
reluctance to prosecute, but he believed that it was not
always wholly dictated by conscientious motives; other
motives, mingling with the conscientious motives, (lid
deter people from prosecution. There was the great ex-
pence of the prosecution, and the chance of the criminal
escaping. When a man had been defrauded of 801. or
100/, he did not always see the necessity of expending
801. or 1001. in prosecuting the criminal, without a chance
of recovering his property. It might only be regarded,
according to a vulgar saying, as throwing good money
after bad : and, therefore, prosecutions were abstained
from on account of the expence, as well as on ac-
count of conscientious motives. To illustrate this he
Would observe that the country bankers had proposed to the
Bank of England, in cases where the forged bills of the
latter were paid to the former, to give the Bank of Eng-
land all the information in their power if it would prose-
cute, or even to be at half the expense ; but when they
found that the Bank would do neither they declined to
prosecute. He would not allow, therefore, that all the
reluctance proceeded from conscientious motives; and he
would not admit, that if the law were altered, there
would be a reluctance to prosecute. He was sorry to fa-
tigue the House with details, but he hoped that the Mem-
bers would give to the following facts their deliberate at
tention. The argument was, that the reluctance to punish
the parties with death prevented individuals fi oat prose-
cuting and Juries from convicting. It was difficult to de-
termine the cases not prosecuted. Individual instances were
no doubt known of, but he hoped the House would not
draw a general conclusion from isolated fasts. He would
compare the case abandoned by the prosecutors, after
commencing the prosecution, for forgery and some other
crimes. Selecting the seven between 1823 and 1829,
inclusive, he had examined the question in reference to
six other capital offences ; that was, he had taken the
charges preferred on six capital offences, and the num-
ber of prosecutions abandoned on them. These were
murder, burglary, highway robbery, horse-stealing, sheep-
stealing, and offences under Lord Elienborough's Act. On
these six capital offences, the number of offences charged
in the seven years was 8,392 ; and of these 1,054 hail not
been prosecuted, or the abandonment of prosecutions
amounted to one-eighth of the whole number of charges.
The number of charges of forgery during the same period
was 383, and of these 53 cases had not been prosecuted.
There was, therefore, about one-eighth of these as of the
former class of crimes. There was no greater number
abandoned in forgery than in murder and other crimes.
The acquittals were of more importance, in his view of
the matter, than the abandonments of prosecution, for
they. had in them less of what was vague and uncertain.
Taking the capital crimes before mentioned, he fouad that
the number charged in the seven years he had alluded to
was 7,328, and of these the convictions were 4,850, so
that the proportion of convictions to charges was as two
to three. There was one-third acquitted. The propor-
tion of acquittals for forgery was not greater. It might
be said, indeed, that several of the crimes he had selected
—such as sheep-stealing and horse-stealing—were, like
forgery, condemned by the general sentiment, and therefore
that the acquittals under them would be as numerous a-
those under the charge of forgery, and from the sante
cause. To avoid this imputation, he would take the case
of murder, and see what proportion the charges and
the acquittals bore to each other. The charges ter
murder, in the seven years, were 479, and the convictions were
only 09 ; so that the convictions were, to the charges, as one to
five. There were in the same period 2,760 charges of forgery,
and the convictions were 1,790; so that the House would see
that the convictions were more numerous in proportion for for-
gery than for murder. The latter was as five to eight, the for-
mer only as one to five. If, then, time punishment of death
checked the crime of forgery, it was a protection to public mo.
rality. The parties most interested in the question of the pre-
venting of forgery were the London bankers, and Bank of Eng-
land, and he would advert to the magnitude of the prop..rty they
had at stake. He would first take the case of the Bank of Eng-
land, and the House would see if the punishment of death might
not be necessary for the protection of its property. The number
of stock accounts in the Bank of England was not less than
3,000,003. It pays, in one year, not less than 400,000 drafts,and
there are not less than 1,000 transfers ofstocks made in its books
daily. Before they came to any detennination on this subject,
they ought to look at the state of criminal prosecutions for for-
gery at the present moment. And first he would beg the House
to look at the number of prosecutions instituted by those esta-
blishments most exposed to suffer from forgery. The prosecu-
tions, then, of the Bank of England since the withdrawal of the
I/. notes had been gradually on the decline. Bear this in mind,
therefore, when the question of altering the law was to be con-
sidered, that an establishment which had 300,000 accounts of
stocks—Which paid 400,000 cheques every year, and which had
100 transfers of stock every day, there had been only two prose-
cutions for forgery at the last Assite, while up to the present
moment there was not a prosecution pending for the next Assizes.
This was the state of crime, with reference to this great esta-
blishment, under the present law of punishing forgery by death.
He had felt it his duty to make very minute inquiries with re-
spect to the practical operation of the present system, in the case
of the great London bankers, in order that he might come to
some positive conclusion whether the infliction of the punish-
ment of des, h tended to the promotion of morality, or of the
reverse.. It might be necessary to state that in London there
had been formed, in the year 1825, an institution for the purpose
of protecting bankers against forgery, by an immediate prosecu.
tion of all those accused of that crime. This' association was
composed of thirty-six of the most eminent London bankers.
They have a secretary and a solicitor, and to them, he appre-
hended, it was the practice to commit the conduct of the prosecu-
tion. The members were, of course, bound to communicate any
offence in the way of forgery, of which they became cognisant.
He believed there were two instances of a departure from that
practice. He would not name them; but, ordinarily, he under-
stood, it was the practice for the members to communicate to the
secretary and solicitor the commission of any forgery which came
to their knowledge.
Mr. MARTIN begged pardon for interrupting the Right Hon.
Gentleman ; but although he was a member of the association,
he never understood that it was binding on them to make an>
communication to the secretary or solicitor, unless they thought
proper to do so.
Sir R. PEEL said he did not wish to mention names, but he
had been assured of the fact on very good authority. Return-
ing, however, to this association, he found, by returns which
he had received, that at the clearing office of these bankers there
were paid, on the 13th, 14th, and 15th of the month of May,
bills and cheques to the number of 45,8001., and the money re-
ceived in this amazing number of drafts and bills, all of them
liable to be made subjects of forgery, they amounted to ten
millions and ninety-five thousand pounds. But this was not all,
he found that four of the banking houses, whose members be.
longed to the Committee, liquidated demands upOn paper, and
therefore liable to forgery, to the extraordinary amount of five
hundred millions in the year. Now by the returns from the
Secretary of the Committee of London bankers, he found that in
1827 there were nineteen forgeries committed, and that the
amountof the forgeries was 7,0001. In 1828, there were sixteen
forgeries, and the amount was 15,0001. In 1829, there were
twelve forgeries, and the amount was 2,500/. ; and in the present
year, up to the latest time at which.the return could be made,
out, there were only four forgeries, and the amount was 6581.
Coupling, therefore, the fact of there being at the pre-
sent moment no forgery under prosecution by the Bank
of England, and that the prosecutions by this society of '
the bankers of the metropolis were gradually diminish_
ing, lie thought they ought materially to consider how
far the present law had proved sufficient for its end,
before they abandoned the . infliction of the punishment
of death, and substituted for it a secondary punishment,
which was expected to operate more effectually to the preven-
tion of crime. He confessed he had not heard from the -Right
Hon. Gentleman that satisfactory explanation of the nature and
effect of secondary punishments which he expected from him
tile,
were
:freer en: et el
ittiorieabltniyi
dszsrbuttehbajteie
owboteuanenne'ldfc'
imprisonment
unrcciaccustomed,nhise,,biiy:
ftais:eioieff
ea ssda}errsaftootehfr gm,
the
punishment generally were, to all the comforts and many of the luxuries of
icial
else they were, by their habits and education, placed in a situa-
Ptsiellinwhdian:iree;puPoLliments. In many eases the Goveniment bad
tried the effect of secondary punishments. They had impri-
soned men for seven years, and what was the consequence ?
Why that the low diet and the languor produced by solitary
confinement had given rise to a mortally infectious disease,
which the most eminent physicians ascribed, after the most
minute inquiry, to purely moral causes, to the languor of lons
were far fwarith
and solitary confinement, coupled with the prison diet, which,
as a fit punishment, was allotted to them. It was observed,
to the Committee Th
o
most formidable aggravations of
saalltbred wuhuesn
segbireeintg,
thhias evidence
re-
movedr
from such privations. But in addition to disease,
solitaryn tihiceoolsieirlfinwehmoseent v
,aen,di 0 low
habits t, a ct
there was another evil to be guarded against. It not un-
ifnreeenittelnetdly
thoapspeemneedo,f
jamt the languor of • solitary confine-
mental insanity: Then came the question of whether this in-
sanity was feigned or real—whether the sufferings were pretended,
or the result of the situation and previous habits of the criminat
doublemilWen:d bf
force br
cy S
oi
—so that, under any view of the case, the infliction of long soli-

ley confinement as a secondary punishment, presented number-
! .ss difficulties. Then came the question of the infliction of hard
I.e.mr. Now, with every disposition to make the criminal suffer
by the infliction of hard labour, it not unfrequently happened
-hat his previous habits of life precluded the possibility of their
putting that portion of the sentence in force. It was frequently
impossible to inflict such a punisliment.—(Hear.)—But supposi:.g
tie did send a man of education to the hulks at Deptford or
Chatham, after he has been there for two or three years, suffer-
ing under the eyes of the public, what security had the Executive
hat the public sympathy wotild not be as much awakened in his
favour. and the public prejudice as much directed against the
inflict on of hard labour, as it is now against the taking away
Cie life of the offender for the same crime ? What certainty
bad he that the public and prosecutors would not shrink
As much from inflicting the punishment of solitary hn-
.risonment or hard labour, as they now do from thet of
loath ? The infliction of secondary punishments,' such as
berd labour, low diet, and solitary confinement, had been
tied for ten years, and they found it impossible to con..
nine it, for the consequence always was, that if they were
aompelled to alter the diet of the prisoners, and to give a
mind of nutriment, which, as was observed by an Hon. Member
Colonel Davies) the other evening, when he had. not an oppor-
•;unity of answering it, rendered the situation of the convict en
Object of envy to the agricultural labourer, whose honest induct y
could not procure him any sustenance of the same description.
ft was said, however, that they might transport offenders of this
description to New South Wales, and keep them to hard labour
t :ere. Independent of the power which a man of education must
d ways exercise among such persons as he would be compelled to
associate with in New South Wales, it was scarcely possible to
guard against other peculiarities of the situation of a person com-
mitting forgery. A man who forges seldom or ever does so with_
nut succeeding, so as to secure a considerable sum of money. He
may escape discovery long enough to accumulate a very large
mum, and it must therefore be taken into calculation, that when
detected and subjected to punishment, he will employ a portion
of his gains to the purpose of securing his escape. In truth, if
the infliction of secondary punishments, such as imprisonment
confinement to the hulks, were to be had recourse to in such
cases, he for one had no confidence in being able to prevent a
forger from finding the means of escape. For these reasons,
which he had thus candidly avowed, lie had no confidence in se-
condary punishments producing the end they had in view—the
prevention of crime, unless they made them so severe that the
mind of the prisoner would be affected—the public sympathy
awakened for his suffe. ings, or his constitution prove inatleatuate
to the support of the sentence. On these grounds, therefore, ha
submitted the question to the impartial and unbiassed decision of
the House—premising only that his decided opinion, supported
by many years' experience, was in favour of the law as it stood,
and expressing, as he did, his conscientious conviction that the
adoption of the Right Hon. Gentleman's proposition would not
tend to the depression of crime.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. BROUGHAM said he felt bound, from the very same
arguments, to came to a different conclusion from that adopted
by the slight Hon. Gentleman. It was said that the number of
prosecutions by the Bank of England were daily diminiihing,
and that as there could be no such desire to avoid the infliction
of capital punishments in the minds of the Directors of the
Bank of England as was visible in others, as they were free
from any scruples on that point, that therefore the offbnce of
forging was not so often committed, and the law requited no
alteration, because it worked well for the protection of the
bankers and the public. The Right Hon. Gentleman also
contended that secondary punishments were not safe to rest on
for a security ; and he contended that they were at all times of
too unsatisfactory a nature to deter from the commission of
crime. Now, that was just his (Mr. Brougham's) difficulty in
this case. How was it that the law performs its office well ?
Why, because of this very secondary punishment, which the
Right Hon. Gentleman attempted to demonstrate as inefficient
and insupportable, and almost impossible to be executed. He
would just beg of the House to look a little at the real state of
the case. In the last seven years there had been 217 convictions
for forgery—that is, 217 persons sentenced to death, independent
of those who were compelled to suffer minor punishments for
minor offences of the same nature. And how many have been
subjected to the unsatisfactory and ineffectual, and all but im-
practicable secondary punishments, which the Right Hon.
Gentleman describes ? Why, of this 217, just 24 were executed
—just nine to one therefore have been subjected to the secondary
punishment alone. If, therefore, there is but one criminal
hung out of every ten, the punishment of death, upon which
the Right Hon. Gentleman lays so much stress, terrifies, not
because it is certain, but because it is nine to one that the
criminal escape. The persons who commit forgery are practical.
men, they are skilled in calculation. They know that one in
ten is executed, and that the others escape. It is, therefore, ten
to one, in the present case, in their minds, that having eoin-
mitted forgery, they may not, if detected and convicted, escape
that punishment which the Right Hon. Gentleman say. they so
much dread ; for if they do not look forward with anxiety and
dread to the consequences of their crime, the whole of the It:g tit
Han. Gentleman's arguments fail altogether. The question
then is—and it is now a new one—whether, if the chance of the
punishment of death happening to one in ten, does not prevent
the crime of forgery, the certainty of the secondary puetalinient
whietli they also must calculate on, will not operate materially to
influence those who are disposed to the commission of such a
crime? It is well known that the men who generally embark in
hazardous enterprises, such as those undertaken by the forger,
are persons of a very sanguine temperament, and they generally
build very strongly on their good fortune, and take a yery favour-
able view of the prospects under which they venture to commit
such a crime. Ought the Legislature then to build tip a fabric
to encourage those sanguine temperaments, and hold out to the
forger a prospect spread before him, a field of chances, in which
there are nine to one in favour of his escaping with impunity
from the fate which should await his crime ? First, there is
the chance that he will mot be detected; secondly, there is the
chance that when detected, he will, from motives of humanity,
and because the persons on whom he has forged disapprove of
the punishment of death, not be prosecuted. Next, then, is the
chance that when prosecuted he may, from some flaw in the
evidence, escape conviction ; and lastly, there is the chance
that after having run through all this gauntlet, lie will be
landed in such a situation, that it is ten to one whether he does
not escape capital punishment. This is the position in whiots
those who commit forgery feel themselves now ; and these are
the terrors which the Right Hon. Gentleman would have them
to believe led to the gradual extinction of forgery. One gnat
difficulty was to induce Juries, under the existing law to convict
for forgery. But the grand difficulty was to prevail on prose..
cutors and witnesses to come forward. Even if prosecutors wen,
callous themselves, which was rarely the case, they were stir.
rounded by persons who were not to, and who would dissuade
them from prosecuting, lest, in the event of a conviction, the
Judge should happen to lean towards severity. Whether from
one motive or another, therefore, prosecutors were disinclined
to proceed; but principally, perhaps, because they felt that the
reluctance of witnesses and jurors rendered it a matter of great
difficulty to obtain a conviction. The statute book might he
blackened or reddened as much as they chose, but it was merely
waste paper, if the enactments a hich it contained could not be
carried into effect. It ought to be considered that there was no
publ.c prosecutor here as there was in Scotland, and this he was
free to confess seemed to him to be the root of much evil in all
our criminal proceedings. But if prosecutors were with diffi-
culty brought forward, the difficulty of bringing forward wit.
nesses was still greater. Those who had been aecustonnxt to at.
'end the Assizes at Lancaster were alone able to judge of Oro dif.
ficulty of inducing persons engaged in mercantile pursuits, and
residing in Liverpool or Manchester, to sacrifice their time and
to travel 50 or tiO miles, in order to give evidence in ordinary
cases. How much more reluctant they were to come when their
object was to establish the guilt of a human being, who might
by their testimony be doomed to death, it was easy to imagine.
The true mode of forming any penal code vas to make the
nishment a certain one, whatever it might be. No man ,would
commita crime, if he were absolutely certa n that in the course of
three or four months he would be prosecuted and punished. NO
man would ever forge a note for a thousand pounds if he were
ibsolutelycertainthat, for that ofience, he would suffer? not death,
nut two years' imprisonment. It was true that it was
possible to make the punishment of crime absolutely cees
Min ; but every effort should be made to approximate as nearly
as possible to that result. To show how much greater the ap-
proach to certainty in the punishment of some crimes was, as
compared with the approach to certainty in the punishment of
other crimes, he would contrast the crimes of murder and forgery.
Of 117 persons convicted of forgery in seven years, on'y tit had
been executed ; while of 107 persons convicted of murder in the
same period, 85 had been executed. The Bank of England had
only two prosecutions for forgery in the year. And why ? because
they only brought forward cases in which they felt conlidout
that they would obtain convictions. That the general out.
pression throughout the country, on the part of these most
Interested in the question, was in favour of the attention of
death for the crime of forgery, could not be doubted. The
table groaned with petitions to that ettl!ets The petitions
were suggested, not merely by the feelings of humanity,
but by the dictates of good sense, They proceeded front
persons to whom paper credit was the breath of their nostrils ;
they proceeded from persons who complained that the crime of
forgery went unpunished ; and who declared that it would con,
tinue to go unpunished while it continued to be a capital Mouse,
The cases of forgery which the Bill exempted front the punish_
went of death were so rare that, practically speaking, they were
which
zero.the B
Bi l
al
riwka.sn coat leesu, lbaitied6 taomen
than notes were indeest
as nothing. The degree of improvement in the law, therefore,
promissory
drillen be rated higher
p.ecrotmc
frequently forged, but not so bonds or deeds. He would make a
concession to the Right Hon. Gentleman—he would allow the
punishment of death to be inflicted for the forgery of the Great
Seal or for the forgery of the Privy Seal. ThO filet was, bow_
ever, that there was no reason for making any distinction what-
ever on the subject. Such were the opinions Which he enter-
tained upon this question—opinions which lie had imbibed many
years ago from his great and lamented friend Sir Samuel Romilly
—and therefore he had felt it his duty not to be altogether silent
with respect to them. He congratulated the friends of humanity
on the discussion of that night, and en the great progresa that
they were making in public opinion ; and he congratulated his
Hon. and Learned Friend on the prospect that he would live to
see the day when this stain upon our statute book would be
removed.

Mr. F. BUXTON observed, that at that late hour he would
trespass upon the patience of the House with very few remarks.
The law, as it at present stood, encouraged, instead of discou-
raging crime; it was an encouragement to perjury on the part
of jurors, grounded en a tenderness for human life. There wo4
much to justify this tenderness. If he were told that a ern:a:Anal
would he subjected to some ignominious punishment—.that ha
would be condemned to hard labour or transportation for
life-
he might be induced to spare no pains to bring him to justice;
but the case was different when he knew that the result of bring-
ing a criminal to justice might be that he would be put to death,
and sent to the awful tribunal of another world with all his guilt
on his head. Let the House recollect that a petition bad been
that day presented in favour of abolishing the punishment et
death for forgery, signed by above a thousand bankers. ThLt
was not like an ordinary petition. No object could be sp im-
portant to such petitioners as the prevention of forgery, Hun-
dreds of millions of money passed through their hands ; and they
were therefore most deeply interested in the adoption of such
measures as would guard them from loss; but of those inembirew
they declared by their petition that in their opinion the infliction
of death for the crime of forgery was not one, It was formerly
said that the friends of the abolition of the punishment of death
for forgery were theoretical, Now, however, it was tbs.
tinctly stated by large bodies of practical men, that tho exist.
ence of the punishment of death for forgery prevented prosecu-
tions and convictions, and thereby lett their property unpro.
tected. The difficulty of obtaining conviction:, naturally pre.
vented bankers from prosecuting; fur it was ol;vions that there
were many reasons to disincline bankers from letting the world
know that forgeries had been committed upon them, unless they
could feel tolerably sure of being able to convict the persons lty
whom those forgeries had been perpetrated. There were irgtur
other points on which it would be easy to dilate; but he Would
abstain from troubling the House any further at that time.
Mr. WY NN highly complimented his Right Roo, friend en
the efforts which he had made and was making to anieliorete
the criminal code of the country, although he could not agree
with him on the present question. Ile must vote for the at,ch-
tion of the punishment of death, Was it not worth while to
try the experiment of abolishing it ° If the experiment failed,
the public feeling would then be reconciled, however reluc-
tantly, to the resell:On:mut of the capital punishment. In his
opinion, the last and severest punishment that it was in the
power of man to inflict ought to be reserved fur ofTences of the
greatest Moral guilt,
Mr. J. MARTIN was persuaded that, upon the whole, it was
desirable to try what effect the abolition of the punishment of
death would produce.
Sir J YORKE was of opinion that if the law were once altered
it would not be easy to bring it back to its present state. Hay.
ing more faith in the judgment of his Right Hon. Friend than
he had in that of a thousand bankers, he should vote fur the Bill
as it stood.

Sir T. ACLAND (as we understood the Hon. Bart.) also sup-
pored the Bill.

After a few words from Mr. Ham:swat and Sir Roam PeEL,
the Committee divided—
For the Amendment ll3
Against it lB
• Majority
The various Clauses of the gill then went tlito,ol the Com-
mittee.

Mr. F. BUX lON gave notice that cn the Winging up of the

Report, his Hon. and Learned Friend would move that the
punishment of transportation or imprisonment should be substi-
stituted for the punishment of death.
The House having resumed, the Report was ordered to be re-
ceived this day.
GALWAY FRANCHISE BILL.
Mr. S. RICE having moved the further considaration of the
of the Galway Franchise Bill,
Report of
DALY suggested its postponement.
Mr. S. RICE declined to postpone it.
Mr. J. DALY moved the, adjournment of the House. A di-
vision took place-
- For the Adjournment 23
Against it.
Majority —2
The Report was accordingly taken into further consideration,
and agreed to.
The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and at
Three o'clock this morning the House adjourned.

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

The brief and vague bulletins of the King's physicians
hail, until the afternoon of yesterday, been the sole official
channel through which his Majesty's subjects were made
acquainted with the existence of the malady which has
now so long oppressed him. Yesterday, however, an-
other and more painful, because more solemn and decisive,
evidence was afforded of the continuance of the Royal suf-
fering, and, alas ! of its increased severity. The Duke of
Wellington brought down to the House of Lords a mes-
sage from his Majesty, stating in substance that the severe
illness under which he laboured rendered it painful for
him to sign official papers ; and relying on the loyal at-
tachment of their Lordships for the speedy application of
some effectual means of supplying the want of the sign--
manual to official documents. The message is to be taken into
• consideration this day. Sir R Peel laid a similar mes-
sage before the House of Commons. With regard to the
fit mode of proceeding in this case, we take for granted
that, as nothing like mental incapacity is alleged to exist,
but, on the contrary, as his Majesty's intellectual powers
are altogether unimpaired and perfect, the power of affix-
ing some attestation of authority, which shall, by act of
Parliament, be rendered for the time equivalent to the
King's sign manual, will be vested in certain of his Ma-
jesty's official servants, under the responsibility of office.
Had the Royal mind been affected, we all know what pre-
cedents are on record, and what the proper delegate for
the person of the King, but we repeat, that the incapa-
city in this case is merelybodily.— Times.
The documents containing a long series of negotiations
respecting Greece were yesterday presented to the House
of Lords by Lord Aberdeen, and introduced by a speech
concisely explanatory of their respective objects. These
papers commence with the protocols of conferences in
1827, and come down to the year 1829, during which
communications of a grave and important nature took
place between certain of the allied Governments, on the
subject as well of the maritime transactions in the Medi-
terranean generally, as of those affairs in which Greece
was principally concerned. Not having yet had an oppor-
tunity of reading the papers, we cannot venture to guess
at their contents, or to state whether, after this interval of
time, they are such as to call for a commentary on the
topics embraced by them. With regard to one passage of
Lord Aberdeen's speech, his Lordship stated distinctly, as
indeed we bad anticipated in our last number, that all
Prince Leopold's financial demands upon the Allied
Powers, after being for some time disputed by the Bri-
tish Government, from an unwillingness to augment, though
ever so moderately, the pecuniary engagements of this
country, were at length and completely acceded to on the
part of England, the other Courts having already ex-
pressed their willingness to comply with them. The
Prince would thus have been enabled to proceed full-
handed to his Government, and with ample means of up-
holding its respectability and independence. The grounds,
therefore, of his Royal Highness's late refusal to undertake
the duties of the sovereignty, as agreed upon, had no rela-
tion to money. Lord Aberdeen did not specify the na-
ture of the Prince's objection, nor perhaps would such a
detailed disclosure have been consistent with official eti-
qu• ette His Lordship merely stated that it was " a new
ground of hesitation." Rumour states pretty positively
that the resignation was caused by a circumstance recently
brought to the knowledge of his Royal Highness, viz., the
refusal of the Greek Senate to sanction the dismember-
ment of Acarnania from the rest of Greece. Lord Aber-
deen, however, assures us, that from the perfect harmony
which prevails among the Allies in respect of it, he still
anticipates a happy conclusion to the whole business, and
at no distant day.— Times.

We rejoice to see that the Four and a Half per Cent.
duties are about to receive the attention they so richly
deserve. Sir James Graham, who considers the claim to
dispose of the Customs without the consent of Parliament
as a new chapter in the History of the House of Ha-
nover, as, in short, a monstrous exercise of prerogative,
gave notice last night, that if Ministers did not give
notice of their intention to bring in a Bill to limit and
restrain the prerogative on this point, he should consider
it his duty to move a resolution to that effect on the
motion of the House to go into a Committee of Supply.
It is impossible to speak in too strong terms of so auda-
cious an attempt to return to the eystem of despotism of
an age when prerogative supplied the place of law. The
principle by which 35,000/. a year could be transferred
front the Customs to the Privy Purse goes to sanction any
conceivable transference.—Morning Chronicle.

We have good reason for stating that there is no foun-
deems) whatever, beyond some partial indisposition, for
the rumours which have been of late so industriously cir-
culated with respect to a certain Illustrious Individual,
whom the precarious condition of our present Sovereign
has rendered an object of the liveliest national coneetn.
The utmost decorum and discretion have governed his
conduct; he has had more than one conference with his
Royal Brother, the :result of which has been alike ho-
nourable and agreeable to both parties, and the very deli-
cate and confidential communications which the Royal
Sufferer has entrusted to the ear of his Brother and pre-
sumptive Successor, have been received with a good feel-
ing and good sense in the highest degree consolatory to
the Illustrious Sufferer. It may be that equal discretion
has not characterised the language and behaviour of certain
persons, connected by ties, however close, unknown to the
Jaw, with the Prince, and that pretensions, founded on
precedents drawn from the worst period of the British
soaashs may have been somewhat rashly and presumptu-
ously advanced ; but they have met with no countenance ;
and if they are not warned in time, they may have cause
to regret their imprudence. Hampton Court is spoken of
as the probable residence of the future Sovereign ; and a
provisional Regency as one of the earliest measures of a
.new reign ; but this last, with regard to the tender years
of the then Heiress Presumptive—not assuredly with re-
ference to anything in the health, mental or physical, of
the expectant Sovereign. It is rumoured, that a surveyor
has already visited Hampton Court with a view to the re_
novation and enlargement of the Palace.—Morn. Citron.
Two questions of great importance were last night
brought under the consideration of both Houses of Parlia-
ment,—one of them of a painful and afflicting nature—
the other, in every respect as embarrassing as it was un-
expected, until within the last few days. The first was a
Message from his Majesty, praying both Houses to take
into consideration the best means of relieving him, in his
present distressed state, from the fatigue and trouble at-
tendant on the signing of official documents. Our
readers, we are confident, will equally deplore with us,
the necessity for making such an application ; but the
truth is, as we stated twelve months ago, that his Ma-
jety has, for a long time past, experienced considerable
inconvenience from attention to such matters, and that
the public had long ago a right to expect a similar
application. How the matter is to be disposed of
we do not pretend to know. His Royal Highness the
Duke of Clarence is the rightful heir, and in his hand,
ought, in consequence, along with the existing Cabinet,
to be lodged the power of signing official documents; but,
on the other hand, delicacy towards his present Majesty
may dictate a departure from the usual course, and it may
not be unfairly argued that, as his Majesty's Ministers ate
responsible for his Majesty's acts, the power Of giving effi-
ciency to the acts of the Legislature, and of signing other
documents to which the sign manual ought to be affixed,
the proposed Commission ought to rest in their hands.
The debate of this evening, however, will throw more
light upon the subject ; and, in the mean time,
we refrain from expressing a more decided opinion upon
it. The next point of importance mentioned minis-
terially in both Houses, is the resignation, or abdication,
of Prince Leopold, of the throne of Treece—a resignation
which, it appears, has not been dictated-by any disagree-
ment about pecuniary matters ; but on which neither of
the movers in the Lords or Commons chose to throw any
light. The affair is, in fact, altogether mysterious and
extraordinary. It has been said, and we believe it is the
only reason announced to which any probability can be
attached, that the Prince is anxious to remain in this
country, in order to protect his sister and her (almost) in-
fant daughter, the presumptive future Queen of England ;
but a reason of this kind must have presented itself to the
Prince long ere now; and we cannot, therefore, suppn e
that it is the pure motive of his conduct. Other reasons must
exist, which our readers will more readily imagine than
we can express; but this we will venture to add, that if
there has been any unfair play on the part of his Royal
Highness towards his
.111a.jesty'! Goyerument, it ought to

become a question, whether the English public will not
be entitled to ratify its obligations towards him in the same
suauner that he hastin this Greek affairi,ratified his towards

it.—The injury has been great, and the reprisal ought to
be equally decisive. If Russia be a better friend to Prince
Leopold than England, why let him have him—if not, let
him stand to his engagements, or shew some more satisfac
tory reasons for not fulfilling them. The second son of
the King of the Netherlands is spoken of, not as an as-
pirant, but as a probable successor to Prince Leopold ; and
if this be the case, Greece will, indeed, be in the power of
Russia, or rather the power of Russia dominant in it, and
the tyranny of the Porte have been humbled in vain.
Morning Advertiser.
Our readers will perceive from our Parliamentary re-
ports that a Message from the King was last night de-
livered to both Houses of the Legislature—to the Upper
House by the Duke of Wellington, and the Lower by Sir
Robert Peel—in which his Majesty was pleased to inform
Parliament that it was inconvenient and painful to him,
in consequence of severe indisposition, to sign with his
own hand public instruments requiring the sign manual.
The King recommended to his faithful Parliament to
adopt such measures as would enable his Majesty to give
effect to such public instruments during his temporary '
indisposition, without detriment to the public service.
An address was voted in both Houses to return thanks
to his Majesty for his gracious message—to assure
his Majesty that his faithful Parliament learned with
regret that his Majesty was labouring under severe
indisposition—(this was the first time, we believe,
Parliament was officially put in possession of the
melancholy fact)—from which they prayed, under
favour of Divine Providence, he may be speedily re-
stored—and to assure his Majesty that both Houses
would proceed without delay to adopt such measures as
would enable his Majesty to give effect to public docu-
ments requiring the sign manual during his Majesty's tem-
porary indisposition. There appears to be some difficulty
as to the course to be pursued in carrying into effect the
recommendation contained in the Royal Message ; for,
strange to say, long as the Monarchy has lasted, there
is no precedent to guide Parliament in their proceedings,
and enable them, without introducing any novelty into
the Constitution, to meet the exigency of the case. Mr.
Brougham observed, in the House of Commons, that it
was necessary to take their measures cautiously and
deliberately, in order to prevent abuse, and to guard
against drawing the present instance into a prece-
dent. He added, there was a delicacy against mak-
ing any remark on the subject, but no one could
fail to see the danger of making the course now to
be adopted a precedent, and the absolute neces-
sity of never having recourse to it if it eould be avoided.
He also cautioned the House to guard against the remotest
possibility of opening the door to abuse. A similar view
of this important and delicate subject was taken by Earl
Grey in the House of Lords. He said lie did not question
but the Noble Duke would be well provided with sufficient
ground for the measure now announced ; nevertheless, he
could not help stating that this was a question of great
importance, and Parliament must look to the interests of
the people, because what was proposed was a delegated
authority. Whilst the House proposed a measure to re-
lieve his Majesty, they must tike care that in doing so
they did not act in a manner that might introduce
an improper precedent. They must proceed with
circumspection, whatever might be their confidence in
the present Government, in order that no improper
precedent might be established. His Lordship added
that the information conveyed in the Message had
taken him by surprise—lie had not had time to look into
precedents, and was not aware of the course to be pursued
by his Majesty's Ministers ; but, if he might suggest a
course open to them, it would be to form a Committee to
search for precedents in similar cases. We think Earl
Grey and Mr. Brougham evinced on this occasion a
laudable anxiety for the preservation both of the rights of
the Monarchy and the integrity of the Constitution, in
recommending a deliberate and cautious made of proceed-
ing, in this great national exigency, to Ministers and Par-
liament. It is always a matter of delicacy and danger to
delegate any portion of the Royal functions to subjects,
however exalted in office and reputation. It is true that
(luring the latter period of the reign of the late King, not a
part only, but the whole of the Royal functions were dele-
gated ; but then that great power, it must be recollected,
was intrusted to the Heir Apparent, who must, in the
course of nature, as it really did happen, have succeeded
to the sceptre which he held by delegation. It was
therefore not to disturb, but preserve inviolate, the Royal
powers, as they were ascertained and settled by the Con-
stitution. Ministers are not now called upon to propose
a Regency, but it greatly concerns the nation when so
essential a part of the sovereign authority as that of giv-
ing effect to instruments which require the sign manual
is transferred from the person of the King to any Offi-
cer of State, or to a Commission. It may, as Mr.
Brougham expressed it, throw open the door to abuse,
and that abuse ought to be guarded against by barriers
inaccessible to the encroachments of ambition. There
is no Heir-apparent to the Throne at present, but there
is an Heir-presumptive; and whether it is intended that
his Royal Highness should, either alone or with others,
exercise the delegated functions of Royalty to the ex-
tent specified in the King's Message, we know not, but
a little time will show, as we perceive the Lord Chan-
cellor is to move in the House of Lords this evening, to
bring in a Bill, or to appoint a Commission, in order to
carry the recommendation contained in his Majesty's
Message into effect. The communications. made by Mi-
nisters to both Houses respecting Prince Leopold will be
read with great interest, as they put Parliameut officially
in possession of the fact that the Prince has declined the
proffered sovereignty of Greece. It appeared, from the
statement of Lord Aberdeen, that from the 20th of Fe-
bruary, until within a few days, the delay respecting the
Prince's acceptance of the sceptre of that country, which
Darius and Xerxes sacrificed myriads of men in endea-
vouring to grasp, was occasioned by pecuniary demands,
which it seems were at last assented to. Since then
a new ground of hesitation on the part of his Royal
Highness had arisen. What this was the Noble Se-
cretary for Foreign Affairs did not inform the House,
but he stated that it was only on Friday evening last
he received an intimation from the Prince of his de'ermina-
tion to resign or abdicate the throne which he had-so re-
cently accepted. lie said he would lay before their Lord-
ships, as speedily as possible, communications of the
whole that had transpired upon the subject, and all the
papers necessary to explain the transaction. Lords
Grey, Durham, and Londonderry, intimated that Lord
Aberdeen had not treated Prince Leopold fairly in not
stating at once the grounds on which lie declined to
proceed to Greece, and that it would have been better,
under the circumstances, to have delayed the commu-
nications until the whole of the documents serving to
illustrate the transactions in question could be produced,
Lord Londonderry added that he saw the embryo of wars
in this affair, and predicted that Russia would pounce
upon Greece as she had upon Poland.—Morning Herald.
It will be seen that Mr. Brougham presented a petition
to the House of Commons last night, of great importance.
praying for the abolition of capital punishment in all cases
of forgery. It was a petition signed by bankers, and by
bankers only, of no fewer than 214 cities and towns of
the United Kingdom. The signatures consisted of the
names of 233 banking firms, 36 joint-stock banking com-
panies, and 502 individual bankers—being in all 771 sig-
natures. This shows, beyond all question, how decidedly
the bankers in general throughout the nation are convinced
of the inefficiency of the existing law, and how much they
hold in abhorrence those periodical sacrifices of human life,
which, under the pretence of especially protecting their
property, exhibit only the sad spectacle of human
blood unprofitably shed ! Mr. Brougham stated, on the
calculation of three and a half as the average number of
members composing a firm, the whole of those engaged
in banking who signed, either themselves or by individuals
of the firms with which they were connected, were up-
wards of 1,000. He said there had been already 145
petitions on the same subject presented by m;xed bodies
of bankers, merchants, clergymen, magistrates, members
of the learned professions, and others, and there were for
presentation that night as many as would make 200 more
petitions. In the Committee on the Forgery Bill, Sir
James Macintosh moved a clause in conformity with the
prayer of the petitions for abolishing the penalty of death.
This produced an animated and highly interesting de-
bate. The speech of Mr. Brougham was splendid, im-
pressive, and unanswerable. The Honourable and
Learned Gentleman seemed to put forth all his powers
in furtherance of the great task of justice and humanity
which he had undertaken. The sentiments which he
advocated were worthy of the eloquence with which
they were enforced ; but its reasoning, power, and
moraj energy, could not on this occasion command the
majority which united upon the weak and evasive so-
phistry of Sir Robert Peel. The question was lost by
128 Members out of 241, the whole number present,
voting against it—the minority being 113. When we
consider the number of Members whom the influence of
Ministers causes to vote with the Government, we must
consider this result a moral victory, although a Par-
liamentary defeat. It ought, instead of depressing, to
stimulate and encourage the friends of humanity, justice,
and civilization, to new exertions. Only sixteen iu-
dependen!L Members who were absent on this occasion—
but who ought to have been at their post, and whom
their constituents, no doubt, expected to hear of being
at their post—would have turned the scale of this battle
of reason against prejudice, of civilization against bar-

barism. We understand that Mr. F. Buxton purposes to
take the sense of the House on the same clause on the
bringing up of the report. We have little doubt of the
final triumph of the principles, which, in common with
all intelligent and humane persons in this country, we
advocate—but we wish that triumph to be soon, that the
spirit of the Statute-book may no longer be set in diTrace-
ful hostility against enlightened opinion.—Morn. Herald.

PRICES OF STOCKS THIS
Bank Stock
3 per Cent. Red. 91%%
3 per Cent. Cons. 92%34 %
3V, per Cent. lOO
Ditto Red. 99;i
4 per Cent. Ann.
Ditto, 1826 104%-U
Rank L Ann. 18 15-18 12 1:16
Ditto 30 years lB% 13-18
Ditto 50 years
India Stuck 243
Ditto Bonds B3 84 pm.

PRICES OF FOREIGN FUNDS
Austrian Bonds
Brazilian Bonds
Buenos Ayres Bonds
Chilian Bonds
Colombian Bonds
Ditto, 1824
Danish!
Greek Bonds
Ditto, 1825.
Guatimala
Mexican Bonds
Ditto, 1825 37

PRICES OF SHARES THIS DAY AY ONE O'CLOCK.
Paid. Per Share.
Brazilian Mining Company £s 11%
Brazilian Imp. Min. Co. (Iss. at 51. pm.) £2O '74% 75
Ditto National 124 28
1Y St. John Del Re- - 5

,itto St. John De. !y
English Mining Company
United General Gas Co. 4l