Star.
London, England, 1822-03-15 00:00:00

4~

but 7i, and then from 20 to 23 per cent. Thus it was apparent
that the Petitioners could benefit little by that circumstance.
Mr. RI CAR DO said, that his lion *lend, the Member for
Wiltshire, was quite mistaken in supposing that the Petitioners
derived any 'benefit from the exchange at present ; the exchange
had nothing to do with the question. They wereentitled to im-
port when the average was at a certain price, and that price was
altered by the increase in the value of the currency. This cir-
cumstance put them under a great disadvantage compared with
the home grower, which he thought unjust.
Mr. S. WORTIF.Y thought the Petitioners made but no
case in conseitsence of the alteration in the currency. If they
really sustained a loss, they ought to be protected.
Dlr. SYKES, in reply, supported the validity of his former
statements.—The Petition was then brought up, and ordered to
be printed.

IRISH TITIIItS.
Mr. S. RICE presented a Petition from the Lay and Clerical
Proprietors of the Tithes of twelve Parishes in one of the
southern Counties of Ireland. He said the Petition was one of
importance, whether considered as to the subject to which It
related, or to the respectability of those who subscribed it. The
Petitioners stated, that after many years of experience, they
were convinced that the state of the tithes, and the mode of
collecting them, were the causes of the disturances which now
prevailed in Ireland, and prayed that the House may take Into
consideration the present state of the tithes in that country, sked
devise such alterations as might appear suitable to its wisdom.—
From the great interest which they had in tithe property It was
the less likely that they were influenced by any motives in peti-
tioning the House, than those which they believed would be
beneficial to the country. They stated, that though thirty-six
years had been spent in devising some measure that would make
the tithe system less felt in Ireland, yet the present law was in.
jurious and subversive of the best interests of that country, par-
ticularly as far as it regarded its agriculture. Ile put the con-
sideration of the question on another ground also; some altera-
tion should be adopted in the system, even for the sake of the
Established Church of Ireland : by the present system its safety
was endangered. lie hoped the Session would not be suffered
to go by without taking it into consideration. He was aware
that a more complicated, a more dangerous, or a more difficult
subject, could not be brought under the consideration of Parlia-
ment ; but refusing to discuss it would only render it more dan-
gerous, and whenever it came before the House, it should be
brought on its own grounds only, unembarrassed by any com-
parison with the tithe system of England, as nothing could be
more different than the tithe system in Ireland and the tithe
system in England.—The Petition was brought up, and ordered
to be printed.

MR. 11. num
Mr. NEWMAN presented a Petition from Exeter,
stating that the punishment of Henry Hunt was ag-
gravated by solitary confinement, and that he was
suffering more than was contemplated by the Court
which passed sentence on him ; and praying that the
House may take his case into consideration with a

view of mitigating his punishment.
Mr. S. WORTLEY said that he concurred with

the Hon. Gentleman who spoke last night (Sir T.
Lethbridge). He thought Hunt exceedingly ill used,
and that he was suffering more punishment than was
intended for him. He hoped that Parliament would
adopt some measure which would induce the Crown
to extend its mercy to him.
Mr. HUME ob .erved, that it had been said on a
former occasion that Mr. Hunt was not in that soli-

tary confinement represented, and that he was at
liberty to walk about. He had received a letter that
morning contradicting it, and stating that his door
was fast closed except three hours in the day, by di-
rection of Dr. Coniston, one of the Magistrates; if
this were the case, did it not shew a disposition to
persecute that individual, by treating him with
much greater severity than any others confined for
similar offences?
Mr. N. CALVERT said, that he was extremely
happy to tind the good feeling entertained by the
Hon. Member for Yorkshire (Mr. S. Wortley) on the
subject. He hoped that it would extend to other
Members, and that something would be done to miti•

gate Mr. Hunt's punishment.
S;r T. LETHBRIDGE said, that notwithstanding
the letter from Mr. Hunt, he could not believe his
puni•hment was so severe as was represented. The
High Sheriff of Sumersetshire,whom he (Sir Thomas)
saw but a short time since, told him that he had sent
down orders to give him all the indulgencies— per.
haps that was too strong a term, he would say free-
doms possible, and he understood that these freedoms
were accordingly given to Mr. Hunt. It was said he
was in solitary confinement, but he believed, on in-
quiry, it would not be found to be the fact. Some
contradictory regulations were made,which, perhaps,
on deliberation, would not have been entered into ;
Mr. Hunt was indignant at these, and thought him-
self worse treated than he really was. He was con-
vinced, on inquiry, it would be found that he was
not in solitary confinement. He did not stand up for
an exercise of undue punishment ; he was ready to
censure those who aggravated his punishment ;'but
he begged the House would withhold giving anpopi-
nion on the subject until it was clearly proved that
such was the fact. On his (Sir Thomas) passing
through lle.ester some time ago, be had a confer-
ence with Mr. Hunt, and commiserated his situation;
he wished to give him every indulgence if it were in
his power, but he lived too far from llchester to visit
the jail—besides, he was not in the habit of es:mi.
ning such places. There was a time when Mr. Hunt
thought Ilchester Jail the best in thz .country, and'
that lie asserted publicly in one of his own publica-
dons. He (Mr. Hunt) must have altered his opinion
even more than die jail was altered ; he once thought
it a Paradise compared to other jails, which shewed
that it was not now so radically bad as he wished to
represent it. After what had been written by himself
On that jail, some extraordinary alteration must have
taken place in it to have changed his mind. He
lhoped if any persons were convicted of ill-treatment
I towards Mr. Hunt, 'hey would suffer the punishment
due to malvetsation ; but he tailed upon the House
not to hastily pass its sentence on the conduct of
the Magistrates.
Sir R. WILSON said, if Mr. Hunt went into that
jail with favourable impressions, it only now fortified
and strengthened the ground of his complaint.—
When Sir Chailes Bamlield Weli High Sheriff of the
County, he was treated with kindness ; but, after the
expii ation of his Shrievalty, several regulations were
then made which certainly gave Mr. Hunt just cause
for complaint.
Sir T. LETHBRIDGE shortly explained.
Sir J. 61 SHAM said, that the present High She-

riff had sent a letter directing that Mr. Hunt should
be treated as he had been by Sir C. Bamfield.
Mr. NEWMAN, in reply, said that he thought thi
conduct adopted towards Mr. Hunt very impolitic,
and when htkiase came before the House it ought to
meet with due attedtion; and, if it appeared he was
suffering an unmerited degree of punishment, it
should be mitigated.—The Petition was brought up,
and ordered tote printed.
Mr. Alderrhan WOOD presented a Petition, • ed
sign
by eight thousand of the inhabitants of the town of
Leeds and, its neighbourhood, praying the House to
take into its consideration the punishment of Mr.
Hunt, With a view to procure a mitigation of it.—
The worthy - Alderman observed that the Petition
was signed by the most respectable names in Leeds.
It had, among" others, the name of the High Sheriff
of the neighbouring county subscribed to it. He
mentioned that circumstance to slew the House that
the Petition did not come from that class of persons
over whoM Mr. Hunt was supposed to have any in-
fluence. He would postpone his observations until
the evidence taken before the Commissioners was
printed and distributed among the Members of the
House. He was led to expect, from what had fallen
from the Right Honourable Secretary,' when Mr.
Hunt's case was before the House on a former night,
that some of the evidence might be distributed on
Wednesday next, and the whole on or before Satur-
day week.
Mr. WYNN observed, that if it was intended that
the evidence was to be delivered to the House piece-
meal, as the worthy Alderman stated, no course
could be adopted more objectionable in its principle
and consequences. It amounted to the publication
of ex-parte statements, than which nothing could be
more prejudicial.
The SPEAKER said he hoped the House would
excuse him in observing that he had heard with asto-
nishment what had fallen from the worthy Alderman.
When it was the pleasure of the House to order any
papers to be printed, it then became the duty of the
Speaker to see that order cal-lied into execution as
soon as possible. But it was not usual to have them
delivered piecemeal, but to wait until the whole were
printed. That was the duty of the Speaker, and lie
was bound to negative any such instruction as was
implied in the words of the worthy Alderman.
Mr. Alderman WOOD said that he felt great
anxiety on the subject, and thought the papers might
be distributed, for the convenience of Nlerisbers, as
they came from the press. He, however submitted
with great deference to the authority of ate Speaker.
The SPEAKER said, he was always anxious to
meet the general wishes of the House. If it was the
pleasure of the House that the evidence- should be
delivered to Members as it came from the press, he
would yield, and alter the usual course. Unless the
House did signify such to be their pleasure, he
would pursue the system which had been always
acted open.
Mr. PEEL said he rose because he was alluded to
by the worthy Alderman. He had no more contioul
over the printing of the documents submitted to that
House than the worthy Alderman had. He did not
know precisely on what day the evidence could be
printed, nor did he recollect that he had ever said
I:hree days, or four days. He expressed his belief that
the evidence could be soon put into Members' hands.
The SPEAKER said he was sorry again to trou-
ble the House. The present case would govern all
of a similar kind. The House would perceive the
difficulty of his situation, if he was to take on him-
self the responsibility of delivering out part of the
evidence before the whole was prepared. He should,
in that case, be at the trouble of reading and exa-
mining every part of it, to see that there were no ex-
parte statement!.
Mr. SYKES observed, that though Ilchester Jail
had occupied much of the attention of the House,
yet it was necessary to give it much more considera-
tion. He was firmly of opinion. that when Mr. Justice
Best had drawn up and signed those rules and regu-1
lations, that Learned Judge could not have had any
intention that they should apply to the case of per-1
sons convicted of misdemeanour. He thought the
visiting Magistrates were wrong in reposing su much
confidence in the jailer.
Mr. Serjeant ONSLOW defended the conduct of
Mr. Justice Best, and defied any Hon. Member in
that House to produce one instance of inhumanity or
cruelty in the whole life of that Learned Judge.
Mr. SYKES explained, and said he made no insi-
nuation against that Learned Judge. He respected
the characters of all the Judges. He had a friend-1
ship for some of them—he had a veneration for all.
After a few words from Mr. DICKINSON, the Pe-
tition was read, and ordered to be printed.
BANK OF ENGLAND NOTES.
Mr. BENNET said he held a Petition from a per-
son named James Ferguson, a stereotyper and printer,
residing in Newman-street, praying the House to
cause further inquiries into the possibility of detecting
forgery of Bank notes. The Hon. Member said that
the Petitioner submitted a plan to the Committee ap-
pointed by the House, in 1818, to inquire into the
means of preventing forgery of Bank of England
notes. Neither the Petitioner's plan, however, nor
any other,was approved of by the Commissioners. He
expressed his surprise that no effectual plan could he
found for those notes, when it was well known that
country bank notes, and the notes of the Scotch and
Irish Banks, were brought to so much perfection
that there were scarcely any forgeries. The Hon.
Member said he had taken an account of the Bank
prosecutions for several years, and found that there
were 413 capital convictions, in the last seven years,
for forgery on the Bank of England. In the year
1821 there were 70 persons capitally convicted, and
16 of those were executed. It was a most lamentable
circumstance that some plan could not be discovered
to prevent such temptation to crime. It was quite
clear that punishment 'could not prevent it. The only
way to prevent it was by inging the.paper currency

to greater perfection, and by rendering detection as
easy as possible. Hewas convinced the Bank would
go on for the thirteen years to come, as they had for
the thirteen years past, without making any improve-
ment in their notes, unless the House took it on them-
selves. No notes were so easy of imitation as those
of the Bank of England.—On the motion for leave
to bring up the Petition,
The SPE A KEIt asked if it prayed for remuneration?
Mr. BENNET replied that it did not.
The Petition was then brought up and read ; and
on the motion that it might lie on the table,
Mr. MANNING said, that the Petitioner's plan had
been repeatedly submitted to the Committee appointed
by the Houie, of which Committee himself was one.
It was under consideration in June; 1818, in 1820, and
in 1821. The Committee, at each time, gave it great
attention, but found it not fit to be approved of. He
defended the conduct of the Bank Directors, and said
they spared neither trouble nor expense in their en-
deavours to procure a plate that could not be imi-
tated. They could not, however, adopt any new
note, if they had not decided proofs of its inimita-
bility. One of the many plans which were submitted
. to the Committee had been under experiment, and he
was sorry to say that it had completely failed. He
was, however, inclined to think that the crime of for-
gery was not increasing. Since May last, the number
of prosecutions by the Bank in Londi;n, for forgeries
of £5 notes and upwards, was only fifteen, and there
were only six more throughout the kingdom.
Mr. HUME said he rose to correct a misunder-
standing of what was said by his Hon. Friend the
Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Bennet). The Hon.
Bank Director, it was evident, had not heard.the Pc-
tition read. The Petition presented to the House last
year by the Petitioner prayed for remuneration; but
the present Petition was calling for further inquiry
into the means of preventing forgery, and suggested
a better plan. So difficult of detection were s9irre
forgeries, that it was no wonder the Public could nit
know them, since in some cases they were taken as
good by the Bank itself. Whilst on his legs he wished
to ask the Noble Marquis, whom he saw then in his
place, a question. He understood that the Hon. Mr.
Bagot, our Ambassador at America, was instructed
to inquire, at the various Banks in the United States,
to a.certain the general opinion of the Bankers as to
the skill and ingenuity of Mr. Pei kips. The answer s
of the different persons were communicated to Go-
vernment, and he wished now to know it the Noble
Marquis had any objection to lay the communication
, before the House?

The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said he saw
no objection to state to him the substance of the com-
munication of Mr. Bagot, so far as he remembered it.
The inquiry, he believed, was of a more general cha-
racter than that now described by the lion. Member.
The result was favourable to Mr. Perkins, and he had
come over to this country, and was employed by the
Bank to furnish a specimen of a note. This project
was taken into consideration, with the different other
ones, by the Commissioners.
Mr. PEEL would call the attention of the House
to the striking fact that there were but six cases of for-
gery during the Spring Assizes in the country.—The
Petition was laid on the table.

JOINT POSTMASTERS-GENERAL
Mr. CALCRAFT said he was about to move for
an account connected with a noble person, of emi-
nence in the country ; he felt it necessary to disclaim
any intention of introducing the name of that noble
person invidiously. The Noble Lord to when' he al-
luded was Lord Clancarty ; and he understood that
his Lordship held the situation of Joint Postmaster-
General for a period of two years, during the greater
part of which time he was abroad, and engaged in
transactions in which it was but fair to state that he
acquitted himself with great credit, and highly to
the advantage of the country. He then moved for an
account of the number of days, during which Lord
Clancarty attended the Post Office to discharge the
duties of a Postmaster-General, together with the
dates of his appointment and resignation.
The Marquis of LONDONDEItRY was sure that
the Hon. Gentleman himself would admit that it was
usual, in moving for an account like this, to state
some grounds why it was called for. Notwithstanding
the Hon. Membet's disavowal of anything invidious
in this motion, it did appear to him that the motion
conveyed an insinuation that the noble person had
not attended to the discharge of his duty, He begged
to state that the non-attendance of this officer at the
Post Office was no criterion of his having neglected
his duty, for he believed the nature of the office per-
mitted that he might perform it at a distance. The
House would bear in mind too, that at a time of great
emergency, during the progress of the Allied Army,
he was called upon at a notice of about 48 hours, tis
attend the King of the Netherlands; and as he had
enjoyed the confidence of that Court, he stopt there ;
and finding that he was not to return to this country,
be resigned the situation of Joint Post master. General.
He saw no reason for a charge against Lord Clan-
carty that he did not attend the Poi t Office, because
still he might be in the discharge of the duties of the
office though absent. As well might o.e lion. Gen-
tleman con plain of the non-attemiance of the Master
the Ordnance, or any other officer, whose duties
admitted of being performed without persona at-
tendance. He believed that the Duke of Welling-
ton held the situation of Chief Secretary of Ireland
whilst he commanded a regiment at Copenhagen.
He hoped that the douse, therefore, would not lend
itself to the infliction of a reproach on the character
of the noble individual in question; and that, as
there was no ground stated for the introduction of
the account, he hoped the Honourable Gentleman
would not press it:
Mr. CA LC R AFT disavowed any intention to throw
reproach on the Earl of Clancarty ; but he under-
stood the Noble Marquis to admit that one P
master-General might be absent from the country
without any detriment to the business of the office,

- ,
, 44.
• . .. , •
.. , •
-.di"' • .
~ •
- ~.
•
. r .
. 1
. . .
.i. • .•
illit I ,
• r.r:::- . ' -...-_-::=,,,•„..
r . ....-0 • •' f 471Airligi3i # . .
'`. . 'lti ~.b i' /, . •
. •
Iak.VAIII
It ....
~.
14. •
) 10
•
• 7 -. .
.1) ..‘ . • •.- 4 •
••;•10,....... 4 •
, !
• .
FRIDAY, MARCH 15, 18214 [NICE SEVENPENCt.
--...----• 1- ..----..-/-.........-.
i
I but TA. and then from 20 to 22 ner cent. Thus ft was 111517arent I rialto(' taint o loth.. .14.....6:...• Owe Mr_ Hunt shnuld I tti arrostor noriectinti_ owl lw .....1....:-- .i.....-...! ..1 ;