Star.
London, England, 1822-07-09 00:00:00

11WRESSIIZST.

Mr. HOBHOUSE presented a Petition from two
individuals, who complained that they had been ap.
prehended by the Captain of one of his Majesty's ves-
sels, on a charge of defrauding the Revenue, and
committed to Jail ; that on being brought up to be
examined, there was no charge brought against them,
but they were not only not then discharged, but sent on
board the Impregnable, in order to be impressed into
the naval service. The Honourable Member referred
to the several Impress Acts, and contended that the
treatment of the individuals in question was illegal,
The Court of King's Bench had refused them their
Writs of Habeas Corpus, and they were therefore
compelled to apply to the House for relief.
Mr. LUSHINOTON and Sir GEORGE CLERK con-
tended that the sending of the Petitioners on board
the tender was perfectly legal.
After a few words from Mr. BRIGRT and Mr.
BERNAL is support of the Petition,
Mr. WARRE said, the practice, legal or not, in
the course of which these Petitioners were appre-
hended, was highly to be reprobated.
Mr. BROUGHAM said, he could not find a more
apposite illustration of the system he had more than
once exposed, than the present. It appeared that a
wan might, unconvicted, unheard, and even unac-
cased, be sent to prison; and thence pressed into the
sea service for five }ears! Originally it was neces-
sary for a man, under circumstances similar to these
of the Petitioners, to be desirous to enter into the sea
service, in order to avoid the consequence of a con-
viction for smuggling ; but the Revenue Laws crept
on, and the consent of the accused was now dispensed
with. These laws were slipped in generally about the
month of July, when many Members were mostly
absent. He trusted his Hon. Friend, the Member for
Westminster, would, even now, endeavosr to bring
is tt Bill to alter the law.
Mr. LUSHINGTON said, he was illndllitre that
there would be any objection to alter the present law,

which. dispeesert with the consent-of the acetited.-••
The Petition wits then ordered to be Muted.
FOR,CIERY Of BANK MOTEL
Mr. BENNET presented a Petition from an indi-
vidual named Fergusson, complaining that the Bank
did not exert themselves to prevent the forgery of
their notes, and praying that the House would not
agree to any Bill sanctioning the increased issue of
these notes. ,
Mr. HUME thought the Bank had the Means of
increasing the difficulty of forging their noses, and
cd
he thought they were highly culpable for having
hitherto neglected to avail highly
es of those means.
Mr. PEIRSE defended the c uct of the Bank.
He begged to ask what motive they could possibly
have to wish for the increase of forgeries upon them?
All the specimens of notes submitted for their consi-
deration were as eas,Ry imitated as the Bank-notes.
After a few words from Mr. BINNIT and from
Mr. Hums, in explanation,
Mr. LOCKHART said, he thought inspectors
should be stationed in different parts of the country,
in order to afford easy reference. This would tend
much to deter persons from uttering forged notes. •
Mr. H. GURNEY did not think the suggestion of
the last speaker could be carried into beneficial effect.
Mr. PEIRSE stated, that there was only one pro-
secution for forgery on the Bank of England pending
at present. The forgeries used to be principally on
the one and two pound notes, and now that they were
not issued, the prosecutions were greatly diminished.
Mr. RICARDO thought, that if the plan of the
Hon. Member for Oxford, of having Inspectors from
the Bank of England in different parts of
.London
were adopted, the evil would be greatly alleviated.
Mr. HART DAVIS said that such inspectors could
not be wanted in the country, since, in a million of
Bank of England notes lately come from the country,
there was not a single forgery.
After a few words from Mr. ATTwoon, the Peti-
tion was read, and ordered to be printed.
PROSECUTION OF 3ORTHWICK.
Mr. ABERCROMBY, in moving for " Copies of
the Commission under which the Deputies of the
Lord Advocate act," said, that although it might not
be in his power during the present Session to bring be-
fore the Howe the case of abuse, as he contended.
relative to the prosecution of Mr. Borthwick, he
should certainly not fail in doing so next Session.—
The motion was agreed to.