The Sun.
London, England, 1820-07-20 00:00:00

N ENV BANK-NOTES.

The Earl of LIVERPOOL moved the second
reading of the Bank-note Forgery Bill.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE said he had a Peti-
tion to present from Mr. J. L. Brandreth, one of
the artists who had submitted plans to the Com-
missioners, and representing the injustiee which
be had suffered by the adoption of his plan with-
out acknowledgment, and by being restrained
through this measure from making any further
use of it.—The Petition was brought up and
read.

The Earl of LAUDERDALE then moved that the
Petitioner should be heard either by himself or
Counsel against the further progress of the Bill.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL said, there could be
no doubt as to the merits of the present question.
It had been many years under consideration,
and the object was, to prevent the forgery of this
important paper. Some additional securities
were -fOUnd to be necessary, and soiree: check to
be interptised, against the great facilities for for-
gery which had so long obtained. In such cir-
curnstances,'the inadequacy of the means hitherto
adopted being rtruth-toinplained of, the most se-
rious attention Was naturally paid to the subject,
and in the other House of Parliament it was pro-
posed to discuss the matter in a Committee. This
course not being approved by some of the Mem-
bers of his Majesty's Government, they opposed
the proposition for that mode of inquiry. An
Address to his Majesty to appoint a Commission
tthoein toted,nqtlir
inquire into
andn of that
toand consider of the subject was
Commission
it w
as,, he
believed. unnecessary to state the names to in-
ssour.(:juitsila;ll the
merited. respect
ecTit its
ComponentNv character
ore all free from
otive-ewthey ware Dr. political bids, or party

Woolaston, Mr. Davies Gilbert, Sir Wiiliam Con-
greve, Mr. Harmer, and Mr. Courtenay. No
persons were more "likely to discharge the im-
portant duty confided to them with ability and
honesty. They carefully examined about 170
different plans, and concluded in favour of that
to be executed under the sanction of the present
Among the 169 persons whose plans were
rejected, it was natural to suppose many indivi-
duals were favourable to their own plans, and
cOnsequntly prone to complain. But he wou d
-ask-, if they were to be retarded in their well-
considered courSe by_ such obstacles as these Pe-
titioners interpose, how could they (the House)
expect to come to a conclusion ?. To say the Com-
mission was not right in its decision, would be so
far an attempt to defeat the measure. Could any
possible good arise *from their further deferring
the progress of the 13111 ? The Petitioners were left
at liberty to work to any of the Country Banks,
and all except the Bahk of England. The Courts
of Law were open to them, and in 'another point
of view, the other House of Parliadent. No
adequate reason was assigned why their Lord-
' ships should suspend their progress with this vin-
' portant measure. They should give it a fair
trial, and not think of rejecting it because a few
persons thought proper to .impugn it.
The Ektrl of L vUDEnD ALE contended, the
- Noble Minister had stated no reason against Bear=
ing the Petitioners by Coqusel. In his mind, the
present was a case in which it was - peculiarly
proper they should he heard. They severally
"stated, that their own plane, in effect, had been
" reap adopted, and that whatever security the
Bank Notes may obtain, it was from their in VEII..
tlO7l.
Lord RETIED.:LE conceived, that none of the
allegations in the Petitions were sufficient to in-
- duce the House to stop the progress of the

measure.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE, in explanation, con 7
tended that the effect of the' Bill:Would be to take
from the Petitioners the benefit of their, own in-
ventions. Ile concluded by moving, that the Pe-
titioners be heard by their Counsel.
This, on the question being put, was negatived
by the House, and their Lordships immediately
resolved into a Committee on the. Bill, which they
agrecd to without any amendment, and the Report
was forthwith received.
RESUMED CONSIDERATION OF THE LONDON
.PETITIDN.
This document, on the motion of Lord -ER-
lias again read ; it appeared to be to the
effect before stated.
The LORD CHANCELLOR repeated his opinion
that a Petition containing such allegations could
not be received by their Lordships. They. were
told that their proceedings were against law, and
he• thought they should be very cautious how
they entertained such a document.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE, lest his silence
might be understood as an acquiesceuco on his
part in, the allegations, wished to observe, that
he thought yen- differently. First, the Bill did
not originate in the Secret -Committee, nor_dic.l he
the Bill eenta
ea till he read it afterwards; but It it-ouhl appear
that the people' of London had a better know,
ledge of their Lordships' . proceedings than they
had themselves ! If the House decided that the
Petition should not he received, he would follow.
it up with a motion that the Petition be rejected.
The Duke of HAMILTON thought the House
should proceed with great deliberation on the
question of not receiving Petitions : when they
were properly worded,. and of a nature which
could be regularly entertained, he thought the
house should receive them. In the present case,
should the question for receiving the Petition of
the City of London be put, it should
.have his
support.
The Loan CHANCELLOR disclaimed, in •any
thing he said on this occasion, the least intention
of any disrespect to the City of London; but no
man or body of men had a right to interfere with
the proceedings of that house, which he thought
could not consistently give way on this occasion.
The House should proceed on its own principles
of judicial proceeding, as they had existed for.
ages, to, uphold which, he believed, would be to
support the interests of every man in the com-
munity.
The Duke of -HAMILTON- spoke in explanation.
Lord REDEsDALE deprecated the idea of their
Lordships not proceeding with a Bill upon a
most imnortant subject, except in such a manner
as the City of London should think proper.
Lord HOLLAND seemed to doubt the propriety
of their receiving a Petition which contained such
allegations. With respect to what they said- of
the Secret Committee, and what took place there-
in, he could not take upon him to say what that
was, but certainly these Petitioners could not be
informed of it. They could know nothing of
what passed-respecting_ that House, except from
notoriety on the votes of their Lordships. He
should therefore support the intended motion of
his Noble Friend.
After a few words from Lord ERSKINE, it was
decided that the Petition should not be received,
and it was subsequently, according to the motion
of the Earl of Lauderdale, ordered to be re-
jected.