Star.
London, England, 1812-04-15 00:00:00

RANK NOTE FORGEItIES.

Earl GREY moved for an account of the amount
of Baak-notes offered for payment in 1797, and te.
fused as forged; and a similar account, half-yearly,
from the same period, to the 'west time they could be
made out. Ordered.—He then moved for an ac-
count of the numbers of those Notes so refused.—
Without this account it would be so incomplete, that
he must fail in his object, which was to shew how far
certain notes were liable to be forged rather than
others, and how far individuals wete liable to be in-
jured by such forgeries.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL objected to this mo-
tion, as unnecessary to shew the extent of the evil.—
It was also calculated to deceive the public, unless it
was specified in the motion those above and below
Rs. Even thee] he should object to it, as it would
tend to shew what notes might be most easily forged.
Earl GREY was confident that nothing, skve the
account of the numbers, would shew, satisfactorily,
the extent of the evil. His object also was, to see
how far the morals of the people were affected by the
facility of forging these notes. It was notot ions that
the small notes were by far most commonly coun-
terfeited.

The Earl of LAUDERDALE said, that the mo-
tion of his Noble Friend would have the effect of
proving that the increase of forgeries was owing to
those measures, the continuance of which was to be
kept by a Bill now before Parliament.
•
Earl STANHOPE would not have said any thing
on this most important subject, but that he was cer-
tain he had bestowed more time and study on it than
all of them put together. It was notorious that the
great proportion of forgeries were in small notes.—
He agreed with the Noble Secretary that the motion'.
was liable to objection, as calculated to mislead the
Country, unless there were added to it a specification
of all the classes of notes in which forgeries had been
committed. He believed, it to be perfectly possible
to prevent those forgeries ; and he blamed the Bank
for not having taken more pains to prevent others.
But it it was. rendered impossible to forge them at
hone without the certainty of their being easily dis-
covered, foreign nations would make a triade of it,
and we had set them the example, by forging the
French Assignats. It had been wittily said to him,
within a few days, that the best way of preventing
these forgeries, would be, not to hang the forgers,
but to hang up the Bank Directors, for having notes
so slovenly made, that any engraver's apprentice,
who had been two years at the business, can imitate
them.

The House then divided—For Lord Grey's mo-I
tion 12—Against it 27.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE moved fur an ac-
count of the period when the Bank of England agreed'
to indemnify bona fie holders of forged notes.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL had no objection to
the motion ; however he deemed it to be wholly un-
necessary.
Lord HOLLAND said, it was to the shame of this
country that the forging of French assignats had been
sanctioned by the Government, as a fair measure of
hostility against the enemy.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL said, that his situa-
tion in Government at the time alluded to did not
enable him to say whether that was the case or .not;
but he referred the Noble Lbrd to a Noble Baron
(Grenville,) a friend of his, who was then one of the
heads of the Administration ; and who, by the bye,
had denied that any such circumstance had taken
place, when the subject was last mentioned in that
House.

Lord HOLLAND had no intention of imputing
blame to any individual, but his charge was against
the then constituted authorities of the country. It
was a circumstance which had come out on a trial in
this country. The motion was agreed to.