The Sun.
London, England, 1818-04-22 00:00:00

would decide that' it should be totally repealeitolt?
The preseut state of the Finances, he would 1
Say, ought to make us despond, but certainly
Say, attention. That the Committee would-
ake into its, consideration, It was absolutely e
eessary that Ireland should be relieved. Under
.these circumstances House would
cumstances he hoped the
a?,ree. to appoint a Committee. He, for his ownl
Part, would vote for the Committee, but at
that
'same time he would not forget that 31though tb.l
uteticin was not agreed to, the Right Honoura e
(Icillleman had agreed to diminish the tax. .
_.
thi‘lr• PARNELL spoke in favour of the appo!nt
'"ent of the Committee. He thought the origin
- ns,
:.'i the whole evils of 'lreland was, that her.
;In Proportion to those of England, were reckonedinen
1111:/eh greater than they really were. Her means
b (I been calculated on a proportion of the ex-
•4irts. hich, in such a case, was a very erroneous
tio,. •
this sri".• Ireland had beet) taxed according to
ca 8 autetttl notion of her means, which bad
,(,),c):.
e,siehed the greatest misery. If the Chancellor
21 the Excheqiier gave his mind to the subject,
44'ileoevitieed some good substitute for thistax
lt be found.
C
I". Mae said a few words in favour of the
phenitteet.
t1n41,.
lleniher, whose oame could not be learnt,
il'i,ceet that every principle of leimanity str:(l
et.l4'e reqiiired the House to repeal this tax. The
Y Preamble of the tei in point of justice
ought
I,°„er'dece the lioese to remit it.
htli 11,
ti.like-. v . SMITH observed, that the Officers who
itto rust this tax in Ireland were
; apartments to examine whether ar
was
per:ie. were any internal lights.
-
ed ututired hi England, and ought nlo.ahtlilt:Ownbejaetlrolorw'go(:
reland. If this tax in field.
tel"4"l'
" 'Exchequer night
Leland were wholly
A 1,,, , , . the Chancellor of the.
bilt
i,..ttstitutes enough for it in economy, with-
Ai aline recourse to his iinaelnati°"'
et
.?_e_eirtrtteA(linc.°lß, 7,s said the question had not
proper ground. There
(isn's,e-bre..
Ziszonrces „tough
without th. 9 tax, by ec
most
6 Ing the public metity. But what was m
'a; endshvt Was that the health' and lives of thou-
terere c
le oncerned.
to .1 • "At.ceaer said, he knew nothing relative
I,'ne merits of the present question
01:the lionse. Hatt the argumentsfavour of
till he came
in
ilicb
foes°li Leen conleted ?—No. Had so tench r saki IS to make the Honse doubt as to
ilieceet If so, that was ground enough to induce
it.-.1-1014e to appoint a Committee to inquire,it.
bat
htlioise
doubts might be resolved. Coe
otenimlder
Poenal(l been gralited on infinitvly
Jest • s; yet here, where the It vesint7tr. his Ma-
i'r tYI 4 3"jeCtS Were cencereed, the Chancellor
~!:11tleeltequer opposed the Committee.
.114( Al.hille Committee was now refused, tie had
11'4(11u0"t th" tile Chancellor of the Exchequero
ess,),tft soot) find it absolutely necessary for hit t _
ofthisth,),ieti to -the House and propose the repeal
, Mr s',4)'•
ti'e%;,"Aw repliad. He felt it his duty to take
it
he .4e
of the e 1I House noon the queation.
Kt-t.",• 11se then divided--
..... _, ,
s• ................................
657
16
• . ,11--4S';li .. ... ii. ..
i ........ ... e. (.:Jalanttee....
Chi
reHote BAILIFF OF WESTNIINST_E:R.s“
was
ft-nel „el!'" to the Gallery, :'• I r 111 AR 4'4 heit'.."'l%l that the order that there shoulribe
ON.
a'"re the [louse an account of the profits..
h"
asi:cipha, the. High Bailiff from his office, snotiid
tts'itir .get'. He insisted that it tees extremely
an ac-
e`{ "'ln .(f) rll thus tome an individital for
"'ln`
di the or4A,rs of his office. after he hail , 'vs. ;a 'ote St compeesation from the House.
e"
IV.: ; i",
a)1 Y part of the clutyof the High Bailiff
till.ll,''imuster to attend the hustings at elections;
fir.," 'hily ~,,,, imposed upon him by an Act o
Orderl!"'• He concluded by moving that the
Air Je disellarged.
foirb -, Ileettes contended,the uni-
that it was
Of 01,1;raetice of Parliament to require an Accountwas
4sked: kitel where a vote of compensation was t
it4Yal I,lt,had I itely been done in the case of be
tailify 4ties) and why not in that of the High
411 ord, "1 Westminster, who had submitted to
~ I, ~eir' hntit in 1811 and 1814?
'• 1('/` Illtliorpe. Mr• Tierney, Mr. Money, Sir
I.it'l ea,cti.!,"°slt, ir J:Newport, Sir E. Br)'dges,
eett.(l‘;,'''''ani But roughs, Mr.
heti ""lkesto„, J. P. Grant, and
-- , contended, that as the applies-
!lis , ?If the High Bailiff was not for an increase of
itila4rv°waltee, but merely for a compensation for
*tittrinteceived, in consequence of the negligent
try an Act of Parliament, there sees no
AletY t't require an eccouut of emoluments.
el111(1iClr-ticruft, the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
-ehe • Rohm Smith, did not see why he should
te „,e to prothlee accounts. which he had consented
ik NiVe i, ,
lie te„t." 'Blll and .1814, and therefore opposed
vi,o.ric...NT.lttieun. House divided.—.......
46
B', The Natest it ..... ..................-........... 46
'441 9Peaker then g,ave his casting vote against
(Iti"n, which, of course was lost•
tit EAST INDIA DOCK cOMPANY.
ti% 7 li' 8n eve sai:l, that in proposieg the mo-
of \etc
eento telt he had given notice respecting the.
lltte,idits of the East India Dock Company, lit-
'hes ' not trespass long on the attention of the
'hose, The Act of Parliaineitt, by which they
Ye-4. rtiled into a public Comploiy, passed in the
I‘)l.(tl4ecti.).(• By that Act all East India ships were
htlt ' ' t put into their Docks, and now that ,I,'
siZe ''''"s thrown open, many ships of a smaller
_'sttlis,..l:etre engar,eed in it, and obliged, like the
eer ' 0 enter there. The Ship °tenets, how-
-1144 t'l 'lid not apply for any relief on this account,
:tieli4'eY asked of the House to compel the East
atletrainek Company to render their accounts
ti't Yto chic Hotise pursuant to the Act, in order
I,."ea.thei,r. Proceedings might be- fairly under-
`el)i,i I here was a clause in the Act pro-
-1:41t1.,n ti`' tile Subscribers from receiving more
iin, 9 p,.• cent. for their money, and pro-
ete6th- at the same time that aisy excess of
,t)iriii. above that sun) should he' a »lied to the
Ile 141niott of the rates charged oini vessels.—
ree,;!(l not meat) to say that charged
Subscribers had
iii,%vved thOre, to
he asked for investigation, to
tver. whether the Ship Owners and the Public
t'''ts' f4irlY dealt with by the Company. There
teiti,l, cireemstance to which he should call their
Ilie
ti,Z))l.l. le the Accounts just laid on the Table,
Witty!
tie expenditure was stated in one item,
vtl any particulars. The item ran thus—

by money expended in wages for unlading the
cargoes of ships, &c. and extraordinary disburse-
ments incurred tor improvements and accommo-
', dations not vrovided for by the increased capital.
It appeared also, that' they debited themselves to
the amount of 68,0001. which was not accounted
for. The Ship-owners complained that they were
obliged to go into those docks, where they were
charged 16s. a ton, while they could have their
business done in the out-ports for 4s. a ton, and
in the Port of London itself for 3s. They did
not ask for any relief from this, but they trusted
the House would take care that the burden should
not be rendered greater than was intended. He',
concluded by moving for the Accounts of the
Company, distinguishing the extraordinary dis-
bursetneuts, and the appropriation of several ba-
lances, from the years 1808 to 1806.
Mr. ASTELL denied that the charge of the Duck
Company amounted to I6s. in the ton ; it was
but 1-Is ; and from that suns 2s. was deducted if
the outward docks were not used. The dividends
had never exceeded, nor even equalled, the amount
allowed by Parliament. The first dividend, which
took place in 1807, was five per cent. ; that con-
tinued for two years—the next five years it W4S
six per cent.--one year it was six and a half per
cent. and now it was seven—averaging altogether
about six. per cent.
Mr. MARRYATT contended that the accounts
should be produced, in order to she w that the
Company had not exceeded the Act of Parlia-
ment.

Mr: Alderman Atkins, Sir W. Curtis, and Mr.
Money, defended the Dock Companies•.— Mr.
Thotwon and Mr. Protheroe complained of the
inadequaCy of mull. accou❑ts.
The motion was then agreed to, as also a mo-
tion for the Balances in the hands of Dock Com-
panies a► different times. •
Mr. D. GILBERT obtained leave to bring in a
Bill to regulate the Office of Lord Justice General
of Scotland.

FORGED BANK OF ENGLAND NOTES.
The CHANCELLOR Of the EXCHEQUER having
suggested that it might be convenient to the
House, if, at this late hour (eleven ►►• clock), the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman opposite (Sir J.
Mackintosh) would consent to.postpone his mo-
tion,

Sir J. MAcKasrrosti said, he had already pot it
off from day to day, and unless the Right Hon
Gentleman could ensure him a hearing, either to-
morrow, or previous to the separate discussion on
the affairs t)f the-Bank, fixed for Finlay, he had
no alternative but to avail himself of the present
opportunity.
CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER 1101 being
able to give bon this assurance,
Sir J. MacKiNrosts declared his regret at being
obligt,l thus late to call the attention of the
House to the important subject of which he.had
given notice; bur he would endeavour to abridge ,
what he iisd to say as much as possible. About
two months ago he had moved for returns of the i
number of prosecutions and convictions for for- ,
gerics of Bat of England Notes, for 14 years
before-the Suspension of Bank Payments, and for
the same period since. These accounts had not
beta deliv,red tiff this moment (they had just
been brought up), and therefore he could not
avail himself of them ; but from several others he
should make some serious statements. He should
move for an account of the expenses of the Bank
for prosecutions for forgeries ; and he suspected
this would be objected to, on the ground that the
House had no right to interfere with the private
transactions of the Bank ; but in consequence of
the multitude of these prosecutions, the affairs-
of the Bank could no longer he considered as pri-
vate. The suspension of Bank payments had been
productive of an enormous public evil, that of
tainting and corrupting the morals of the people,
and leading them to depravity and death, by the
commission of certain crimes in number unex-
ampled. This was his case. From certain re,
turns he could chew that for seven years before
the suspension there were no prosecutions by the
Bank for forgery ; for seven years after it, there
were 222, °misting the year 1797, as the inter-
mediate one between the payments and the ope-
ration of the Act. For 14 years before the sits-
pension, there were only four prosecutions, and
for Jourteen after, 469. Taking 21 years before
it, the number would he six, and the same time
after, 850; the proportion then was 6.t0 850.
. He would ask whether there was to be found in
the,history of our criminal law, or in that of any
other country, so sudden an increase of crime at
any former period ? This statement involved-more
argument than it was possible for any words
to convey, and he might here almost close his
remark's ; but he wished to answer an asser-
tion, that the forgeries of Bank Notes bad de-
creased prosecutions for coining. Unfortunately the
returns from the Mint slimed that these prosecu-
tions had increased, though gradually, and almost
silently, since 1783. In the returns from the
Mint, the proportion was, for fourteen years be-
fore and after, not much more than double in the
second titan in the first fourteen years. 'But if the
prosecutions for coining were nearly treble in 21
years, those for Bank-notes were 120 times as
great. This extraordinary event ought to be ac-
counted for by all who argued the question. He
desired to know what other cause could be as-
signed than the circulation of small notes ? At
first they were only a million and a half, now they
were seven or eight millions. This was the sole
cause of those dreadful crimes, and it was shocking
to think that the punishment was more inflexibly
executed than for any other crime except
murder. The Honourable and Learned Gen-
tleman proceeded to descant on the various
moral consequences arising from the Bank Sus-
pension Act. He ascribed to it the abatement of

highway robberies, as the forging of notes proved
a more lucrative traffic, carried on, not by open
violation, but by fraud stud deceit. The Bill for

ditninishing the circulation of Country _ Bank-
notes he considered a measure which ought to be
called, a Bill for the Increase of Forgeries
on the Bank of England, in order to pro-
cure recruits for the gibbet. The paper of
,Country Banks was scarcely ever forged ; and
the common notion of the injurious tendency.
of Country Banks was extremely groundless.—
The idea that- they were afraid to prosecute, lest
it should hurt theis credit, was a vulgar notion.

The forger had his choice whether he would forge
the Bank of England or Country Notes ; and, of
course, he preferred the former, because he was
less likely to be detected. The forged notes; he
argued, was a tax of twenty-five thousand pounds
a year, taken chiefly out of the pockets of the
lower orders of the people ; and thus, by a con-
tinuance of the Restriction Act, the House in-
flicted an injury on the community that their
hearts would recoil at if'it were proposed irr a di-
rect way. He pathetically alluded to the situa-
tion of women in general, who had so few means
of livelihood by respectable industry; and thus so
many became exposed to the artifices of those
who sought to entrap them into the commission
of these crimes, to .which even our laws might be
said to open a door for them. Indeed the number
of convictions and executions of women, for for-
gery and other capital crimes, must fill every heart
with horror, and must prove injurious to the na-
tional character and hrtmanity of the British peo-
ple; while, if not checked, it must excite just
unpopularity against our system of jurisprudence,
and contempt and hatred against the upright indi-
viduals who administer justice, without the
smallest fault on their parts. Such prosecutions
are peculiarly odious, because whole families
might be
,brought to he tried for their lives ; and
thus, whether the system were just and necessary
or not,
.it was most abhorrent. The Hots. Gen-
denials then commented in severe language on the
privilege assumed by the Bank, or their prosecu-
tor, of selecting those they intended tb bring
home the charge-t-O;.frontrhase. they prosecuted for
the minor offen:ce.of having such notes in theit pos-
session, and for which the latter were only trans-
ported, while the former were hanged. This de-
parture from the usual- mode was.a•proof of the
Ondtitude of forgeries, and they found it was im-
possible to adhere to the ancient policy, which
would eau,e all the criminals to be hanged; if con-
victed. He wished to see the country retorts to the
state in which it was befisre the Restriction Act ;
and it the House shrunk from an inquiry into this
subject, they must take upon themselves the blood
that will yet be shed on such an account. It
was his intention to move for a Select and Secret
Committee of Inquiry after the motion on the
affairs of the Bank had been disposed of; that it
might he seen how the money expended in such
prosecutions was employed ; whether the means
adopted were the most fair and honourable, or
whether rewards were not given to the most in-
famous, despicable, and infernal wretches, who
acted as spies, and were induced to facilitate the
commission of these crimes by others ; and if so,
he would say, that money so employed was ex-
'tended in the corruption and perversion of justice.
lie concluded with moving for a series of ac-
counts, containing the total nominal value 'of
forged
.Bank of England notes, from. the lst 'of
January, 1816, to the 18th of April, 1818, of the
number of persons prosecuted by the Bank within
that time; the total nomber:of Bank notes dis-
covered to be forged ; and accounts of the whole
expences of prosecuting the persons apprehended.
Mr. MANNINO admitted the correctness of the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman's statements of the
number of prosecutions at the
,different periods ;
but insisted that the prosecutions Wad beets greater
on the part of the Mint than of the Bank, 'as they
consisted of those for imitating the dollars. He
did not know a single instance of any project sub-
mitted to the Bank, for improving their notes, that
bad not. received the fullest
.cousideration. He
should resist the motion for the account of the
expences of the prosecutions, as interfering with
the private concerns of the Bank.
Sir C. MORDAUNT said, the people of Birming-
ham were deeply aggrieved by the uumber of these
forgeries. They considered their character at
stake, and were about to present a Petition to the
House on the subject.
Alderman Woof) considered the motion for the
expences to be the most important point, as it in-
volved the life and liberty of the subject. He
was convinced that nine persons out of ten
had been inveigled into the commission of the
crime. He alluded to the hard case of. Mary
Skelton, whose infamous brother had entrapped
her, and who had been suffered to-escape by the
Officer who had him its custody.
Mr. GRENFELL expressed his surprise that Mr.
Tilloch's invention had not beets adopted. Some-
thing ought immediately to-be done to give a
greater degree of security to the public.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER defended
the conduct of the Bank Directors, and considered
the insinuation of the Hon and Learned Gentle-
man as to their employing spies, to be the must
unjust aspersion that had ever been thrown on an
independent and meritorious body of men. He
hoped the Hon. Gentleman would explain some
parts of his speech that'bore hard on the judicial
system of tire country.
Mr. BENNET coin-pared the selecting of cases
for punishment by transportation, from those in-
tended for the utmost severity of the law, with
compromising of felony. It was well known that
the Bank gave 151. for every apprehension. • The
whole. system was disgraceful to the people of
England.
Mr. Thompson, Mr. Dickenson, and Mr. Ba-
bington, severally spoke its favour of the motions,
and'against the system pursued by the Batik in
detaining the Forged Notes, and even counte-
nancing assaults upon individuals.
General THORNTON expressed his anxiety for the
success of the Hon. Member's motion. He bad
the highest respect for the Gentlemen of the Bank,
but he could not but believe that they were too
Much under the contront of their own officers.—
lie was surprised that the Directors themselves
had not moved for a Committee to spew that no-
thing better could be done on their part.
Mr. B. SHAW thought that the Bank ought to
have done more than it had clone to prevent the
increase of forgeries.
Mr. 11. DAVIS answered the assertion, that if
the notes had been better executed they would,
not be so often forged, by stating, that he had
seen notes issued by a private Banker, executed
by a most distinguished Artist, which had been
so completely forged, that, brought before him,
he could nut distinguish the false from the true
one.

Mr. S. THORNTON said, several inventions bad
been submitted to the Bank to prevent forgeries—
some were fouad not likely to answer, and others