The Sun.
London, England, 1821-05-26 00:00:00

SLERriA LEONE.

• Mr. HUME presented a Petition from a Dr. Thorpe,LL.D.
complaining • of having_ been dismissed from his situation of
Chef Justice of Sierra Leone,- from having transmitted to his
Majesty's Goyernment the complaint of certain planters against
Governor MaXwell. The petitioner stated that he was not con-
scious of having done any thing but what he above stated to
oFend this Government,' . and •he thought that after having'
tetrad as a .Judge for, fourteen years, Government ought to
have inform 4 him of the charges against him 4 and given
him an opportunity 'of' justifying • himself. The Honourable
Member stated that as. a . proof of the justice of the charges
avinst Governor. Maxwell, many, of them had since.been este-.
Lushed in a'Court of Siistice in this country. The Hon, Mem-
'cc: observed;' that -the petitioner's case seemed to be entitled
to consideration, and- he hoped the House would do Sciiiiithing
:Cc; him.
Mr. WARRE wished to know whether the Governer Max.-
well alluded to was the same who-suffered an award in a Court
ceJiiitice in this country some time ago, and with, reference to
•which • the ilon. Membei for Winchelsea stated to the louse
that it was so -hard 3 matter- upon the Governor, that•he thought
illajesty"e Government ought to indemnity him in the amount j
cf the award. If so,, he thought the charge of the petitioner
against him ought not to be entertained by the Hotiae. It m:glit
he very•proper for Hon. Members to present petitions of indi-
viduals complaining of grievances to that House, but some sort
of circumspection -should be used, else the characters of indivi-
i.2.uals might be from no one being piesent at the
moment to defend them, - •
_ _

Mr. GOUIiBURN fully corroborated. the statement of the
„Eon. Member- (Mr. War* relative to the hardships of the
award against Governor Maxwell, 'and he fully agreed with the
Honourable Gentleman, 'that the charges . contained, in the
petition .against that honourable. individual, ought not to
ce entertained.' He' should forbear entering Any farther
'lnto a statement of the case, as it had been akeady-frequent:-
ly before the House, and also from Afeeling.of Teluctance to
aggravate the state in which he'understood. the Yetitioner to
le, from any statement of the facts of the case of Which he
=telt be possessed.
Mr. HELIM maintained thatthere was a pnixai FACIE case
against Governoi Max ell in the verdict 'of twelve man.against
"ram.

Mr. HUTCHINSON hoped • that the concluding wordi,of.
the Hon. Gentleman's speech (Mr..Goulburn) were not meant
.to convey any censure ort Dr. Tbotpe, who was a Gentleman
of a most respectable profession, and deservedly esteeined -in his:
own country. •
Mr. SCARLETT stated that Governor. Maxwell bad sus-.
rained a verdict of 10091. in.th&.case alluded to, and he did not:
think he had cause
.to complain.,.- • • • • •.• •
After a few words from Mr. GOULEUR24., the Petiqonwas,
•ordered i 0 be printed. •
FORGERY PUNISHMENT BILL.

Sir J. MACKINTOSH wished to brine up the
£teport of the Forgery Punishment Mitigation

Bill, to move two or three small 4ruendrnents,.
none of winch would be likely to provoke a de-
bate; and then to fix a day on which the kenerill
`discussion should take' place on the third'read.;
ing, when any further amendment which others
might think fit to.move could be received.
The. Report beitig brought up

Sir J. MACKIN-Tosii Teminded .the' House that
a considerable rhajority of, the. House, when the
attendance was as full: as' could be expected'at
this period of the Session, had-voted in favour of
the proposition for abolishing: the punishmentof
death in cases of •forgery.' Among-these were.
Bankers, Merchants, and many of the most en-
lightened characters that had ever adorned that
House. In the amendment he had now to pro-.
poSe he .wished to mark his respect for the judg-
ment of those who, differing from him in some

instances, had given their present Bill their sup-
port. In framing it he had in some instances
availed himself of their opinions, and he pro-
posed to do so still more in the present instance
by sacrificing his .own, and introducing ex-cep
tions which be himself had rnot thought neces-
sary, but which others had thought desirable.
It was most strongly contended that capital
' punishment ought to apply to the forging of
wills. In cases where landed property alone
.was concerned, he , had. tthought the scruples.en-
-tertained, on this subjettivain, from the difficul-
ties whiCh lay in the' way of 'forging Suck wills;
but where,perSonal property alone was concerned
the same difficulties did not_ occur, and therefore,
he was Willing to make an exception with
spect to wills. He next proposed sacrificing his
own opinion by, excepting the two forgeries.
created by the Marriage Act—the forgeries of,
entries, and registers oemarriages. Thirdly, he
would propose to-except from the general pro V-
isions of the Bill :forgeries of transfers of stock.
He moved to amend the. Bill by inserting words
to except the • forging of " any last codicil,
or testamentary -paper:"

Mr. CRIPPS objected to the Bill, that while it
went to punish forgeries of Bank of England
notes, it did i!ot extend the same punishment to
the forgery of Country Bank 'Notes; This he
thought particularly objectionable from various
reasons, and especially so as the Bank of Eng-
land was not obliged to pay forged notes, while
the Country Banks were compelled to pay notes
purporting to be theirs, though known to. he
forged, as if they refused to pay a forged note,
their credit would at once be lost, and they
would find it impossible to issue another note.
Sir J. MACKINTOSH declined offering any re-
marks on this subject at present, but would re-
mind the Hon.' Member, that it would be open
to move any alteration in the Bill which he
might think proper on the third reading.
Mr. GRENFELL could not help concurring with
the Hon. Gent. opposite (Mr. Cripps,) in what
he had said against affording the Bank of Eng-
land a protection in cases of forgery, which was
not extended to Country Banks. He could wish
that the Bill should exclude capital punishments
for forgery altogether ; but retaining them as ap-
plicable to cases where,the Bank of England was
concerned, he certainly thought., with the
Gentleman, that they ought to be extended to
Country Banks also. -
'-
Mr. J. MARTIN had some difficulty in Making
up his mind, how to vote on this measure. If the
offence were made punishable by transportation
in every case, he should have no hesitation in
giving it his support. _ _ _

Mr. BENNET differed much from the last
speaker. Tranportation, far from.being
dered as a punishment, if held out as the conse-
quence of forgery, would operate AS'a bounty on
the commission of the crime. - The generality of
persons transported were, he believed, much
obliged to Government for sending them,outi.
MG. BARING could not see that any benefit
was held out to the Bank of England by the ex-
ception made with respect to its notes. The loss
of the forged notes fell not on the Bank of Eng:
land, but on the public ;-:end- the question there-
fore was not-what. would be •best for the• Bank,
but what would, afford the country the best-se-
Curity Against the crime of forgery. He saw no•
reason for making an exception in the case of the
Bank of England notes. If the principles on
which this bill were founded were good for any
thing, they were good.for carrying the principle:
to the whole extent.of the subject, for it was
contended that the ..milder punishment would
more effectually repress the crime than the punish.:
ment of, death, and consequently' forgeries of.
Bank of England notes would be best prevented
by the same means, or.this,Bill was good for no-• 1
thing. The question,-before the house was this
--Would a .secondary punishment afford the
country greater protection from forgery than it
had already? When it was said that the crime
ought in every case,be visited with transportation
he must oppose that..pr9poAitiont as he agreed
with his lion. Friend, thy' rriember far Shrews-
bury, that transportation witA now considered no
punishment .at all ; and if 66 heavier punishment-
were propcked, he should 'certainly vote against'
the:Bill when it came'to a third reading.
Mr. J. SMITH objected:to the discretion, which
the Bill at present left with the Judge,' of in-
flicting a long or a short period of imprisonment
at pleasure. • '• - '

Mr...LocKHART WAS proceeding to speak on
the principle of the' Bill, when
SirJ.MACXINTOM interrupted his Honourable
Friend, and suggested to him that the discussion
could be more conveniently taken on the third
reading of the Bill. The Bill, he remarked,
gave the. Judge power to sentence the offender to
impriionment, 'with or' without hard labour, for
any term, not exceeding fourteen years.

After a few wOrds'from•Mr..PEAttsr. and Mr.
J; MARTIN., the Ameiichnein was agreed' to.

Sir J. MAcKINT.)Su moved the other amend-
ments which he had announced it to be his in-
tention to propose, which were agreed to. He
a'lco, CIS an objection had been -made to its being
left in the power'of the Judge to sentence an
offender to as short a period of imprisonment as
he might ,think proper, moved that words should
be introduced, providing that the imprisonment
inflicted in cases of forgery should not be less
than three, nor more than fourteen years.
Mr. BAILING would rather that this Bill should

impose a specific punkhma.nt of ~imprisonment for
fourteen years. As the lion. and Learned Ge.ti
U-
tleman: now: proposed that'` it should stand,-it
would go forth -to the country that three years'
imprisonment was henceforth to he considered
the punbhinent for forgery. This did not appear
to him to be a punishment of sufficient magnitude
to are applied to cases of forgery. Imprisonment
for fourteen years ought to belield out in terrorem.
In particular cases the .p,unishment could be
mitigated or remitted by the interference of the
Crown.

Sir J. MACKINTOSH thought there would be

,little practical difference whether the discretion
he proposed to give were left to a Judge, or whe-
ther; in• particular cases, a mitigation of punish
ment should proceed from the Crown.
Dr. Lusx INGTON considered, when the punish-
ment of death was taken away in cases of forgery,
that ii was of great importance that a severe pu-
nishinent should be its substitute. He'was of
opinion that nothing less than ten years'.confine-
Ment„ with hard labour; would be sufficient.—
lie Was desirous of taking from the Judge the
discretionary power which at present it was pro-
poSed to confide to him. This,. he thought, was
due, in the first plate, to the security of the corn-.
rnercial world, and 'seCOndly, it was due to, the
friends to the diminution of capital punishments,
to guard against the Bill being so flamed as to
_give their opponents reason to say that the rifea-
'sure had failed from the adoption of a too lenient
punishment. If his Hon. Friend would consent
to it, lie was disposed. as move that ten years' im-
prisonment, with hard labour, should be the pu-
,nishment of forffnery without any discretion being
given to the 'Judge to mitigate the sentence. In
particular cases they knew the Crown could be
called upon to interfere.

The Marquis of ;loNDoNDERRY remarked5 that
proceeding as they were now dokg, they might
go through all the clauses of the Bill without
being able to come to any decision.
Sir J. MACKINTOSH said, it was with much un-
easiness and pain that he had heard the conversa-
tion thus protracted, as it was an act of great
courtesy on the part of the Noble Marquis to
allow it to be brought on at that time. He was
willing to accede to the suggestion of his Learned
Friend.—[He then withdrew the Amendment he
had last moved .to, propose a new one—that the
punishMCnt of forgery should be ten years' im-
prisonment, with hard labour.]
The. Amendment was agreed to.

Sir J. MACKINTOSH withdrew the next enact.
ing clause altogether, and moved, in consequence
of a wish expresged by the Learned Lord on the
opposite side of the House, that a proviso should
be added, excepting Scotland from the operation
of this Bill.

Mr. CIItPPS said, 'as other amendments were
,moved in this stage of the Bill, he could not al-
low it to be printed and go. forth in its present
forin without fifrst moving an Amendment, which
appeared to -firm as' important as any that had
yet been.Troposed. lie would move, that to the
exception with respect to Bank of Englaid Notes,
:there 'should be.ad4ed the words—" or any. note,
check, or promissory 'note of any other 'Bank."
As ;the Bill at present stood, a direct induce-
ment was held out., to ..forgers. to turn,ifrom the
notes of the Bank of England to those of the
Country Banks.
Sir J. IVlAciilNTosn suggested, . that this was
not the most convenient time,for offering such an
amendment.

The SPEAKER said, it would be open to the
Hon. Gentleman to move his amendment on the
third reading, but having passed over that part of
the Bill in which it was proposed that it should
be inserted, they could not now revert to it.
Mr. CRIPPS inquired if it would be correct for
him to move that the Bill should be re-committed.

Mr.' MAUERLEY thought the objections of the
lion.- Gentleman entitled to great weight. The
Billy as at preSent framed, went to direct all for-
-gers to the Country Notes.: That man must be
mad who would think of forging Bank of Eng-
land Notes, when he might forge Country Notes
without risking his life.
Mr. LOCKHART spoke on the pri4iety of protecting the
.Country Banks.
Sir J. NEWPORT called the Honourable Gentleman to
order, reminding Itim that the question now before the House
was, whether or not the operation of the Bill should extend to
.Scotland?

A conversation on the point of order ensued, in which Dr.
PIIILLIMORE, Mr. MARRYATT, Mr. C. W. WYNN, and
Mr. BRIGHT participated.
The SPEAKER, repeated what he had before stated on the
impracticability of reverting at that time to a part of the Bill
which had been disposed of.
Mr..cluus wished to. know if he should be Out Lof order
If he moved an addit'o ial clause ?

The SPEAKER said, they could only get rid of the-clan:le
then before the House, by-agreeing to it, by rejecting'it, or by
amending it.
A further conversation ensued, in which Sir J. MAcK..is-
. .
fti'Aii; 'OIPPSi' and Mr. 'L'ocrit Ant, took a part.
Mr,CRIPPS said, he should wish: ;to move a clause to,the
eWect of what he had stated.
Tii,6 SPEAKER inquired if the lion. Gentleman was pie.;
pared 'to bring the clause up ?
Sint. MACKINTOSH said,:i6ther than he the cause of any`
longer. interruption. to retard theapitortant public business which
was, (::1-cotn.e 'on that evening, he would agree to the reconmiittal
of

I,lte'Report was then ordered to be taken into further consi-
deration. on Monday. • . .
On the motion of Sir J. MACKINTOSH, it was then oi--.
tired that the Dwelling Muse and Navigable River Robbery
Bills, should be ordired to'be committed, the former on Mon-
day, the latter on Thursday.